Get product reviews

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: ordering is newest-first, dates are Gregorian, and many products carry a single generated 'summary of buyer opinions' that should be treated as marketing rather than real reviews.

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-loaded with the core action and return shape, then the caveat about fake review summaries. Every sentence carries actionable information and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (rating, author, date, text). Combined with the data-quality warning and date-format note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so page, limit, full_text and product_id are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only ordering (newest first) and the returned field set, which is mild added meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get buyer reviews of one product'), plus ordering (newest first) and the exact fields returned (rating 1-5, author, date, text). This clearly separates it from siblings like bn_search, bn_browse and bn_product, which retrieve products rather than reviews.

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 a clear use case ('check quality or complaints') so the agent knows when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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