list_reviews

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It mentions 'Pro feature' hinting at access restrictions, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination behavior (despite limit parameter), or authorization needs. The behavior beyond filtering is opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with three clear phrases: the main action, a key filter, and a usage constraint (pro feature). Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately states the core purpose and a filter, but it omits context about pagination, sorting options, and whether the tool is read-only. It is minimally complete for a simple list tool but lacks depth.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'Filter by rating' but that is already explicit in the rating parameter schema. No additional value is provided for other parameters like sort or limit, which are fully documented in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (customer reviews), and additional context (filter by rating, pro feature). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like review_status or triage_reviews which have different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for listing reviews with optional rating filter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like review_status or triage_reviews. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.