Product reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: newest-first ordering, that rating is null for star-less questions, what verified_buyer means, that shop answers are included, and that dates are Jalali (1405-07-13) — a format quirk an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then layers usage and data quirks. Every sentence is informative, though the parenthetical detail and closing sentence make it slightly denser than strictly necessary.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still supplies the interpretation cues (null rating, verified_buyer, Jalali dates) that make the output usable. Nothing critical is missing for selecting or invoking the tool.

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 both parameters (limit, product_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description echoes ordering but adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read customers' reviews and questions about a product') and pins down ordering and content scope, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like ab_product or ab_search which cover product data rather than review content.

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?

Gives explicit use contexts ('quality check before recommending a product', seeing the shop's skin/hair advice), which tells the agent when this tool is the right call. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating when not to use it, so it lands at a clear but non-exhaustive 4.

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