Get product reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by disclosing the scraping behavior, the possibility that the reviews section may not render (resulting in an empty array), and the instruction to fall back on aggregate data. This is a non-obvious behavioral trait not covered by the annotations, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 multi-sentence but every sentence earns its place: it states purpose, usage timing, an edge-case behavior, and a clear exclusion. It is front-loaded with the core function and flows logically 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?

With an output schema present, the return structure is documented. The description covers all operational aspects: parameters, usage order, failure mode, and alternative tools. There is nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly that is missing.

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 both parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces that 'limit' caps the number of individual reviews and that 'code' is the same Alza code from search_products, but these are minor clarifications. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the primary burden.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('reviews for a single product by its Alza code'), and enumerates the delivered data (aggregate rating, count, individual reviews). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is not for the aggregate rating alone when already available from search_products/get_product, making its role unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('Use after get_product when the user wants real-world feedback'), a concrete exclusion ('Do not use for the aggregate rating alone when you already have it from search_products/get_product'), and handles a fallback scenario (empty reviews array when section not rendered). This is exemplary guidance for an agent.

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