reviews_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: cursor-based pagination, the exact return structure, and a warning about PII in reviews. These details go beyond the annotations, justifying a 4.

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 fairly concise with front-loaded purpose. It includes pagination, return format, and PII warning in a structured way. The spec link adds length but is an optional extra. Could be slightly tighter, but overall effective.

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?

For a list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains pagination, return fields, and a PII note, covering the essential aspects. The spec link provides additional details if needed.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., sort enum with invalid value warning, cursor explanation). The description adds a PII note but no additional parameter-level detail. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List customer reviews for an app', specifying the verb (list) and resource (customer reviews). It also distinguishes itself by noting cursor-based pagination, setting it apart from any offset-based list tools among siblings.

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 provides clear context about the tool's function and pagination behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like review_get or other list tools. The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer usage, but explicit guidance is missing.

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