Triage reviews into themes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it runs via MCP Sampling using the client's own model (no extra server cost), and it is gated behind a Pro feature. This is the kind of operational detail annotations cannot convey. It stops short of noting latency or failure modes of the sampling step.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by cost and feature-gating notes. Little waste; the sampling/cost sentence earns its place because it affects invocation decisions.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, which it does well (themes, counts, representative quotes, action buckets). Combined with full schema coverage for inputs and a read-only annotation, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so app_id, days, limit, and rating are already fully documented in the schema. The description implies a look-back window ('recent reviews') but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (pull reviews and cluster them into 3-5 themes) and specifies the exact output shape with counts, quotes, and action buckets. This clearly separates it from sibling list/review tools like list_reviews and review_status, which do not cluster.

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 usage context is implied (thematic triage of recent reviews) and there's a hint of prerequisites via 'Pro feature' and the MCP Sampling mechanism. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over list_reviews or review_status, nor any exclusions. Adequate but no explicit routing.

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