Product reviews

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds context they cannot: the exact payload (product and shop average stars, review fields, shop replies), default truncation to 400 characters, and an explicit prompt-injection caution for user-generated review text. That last item is genuinely useful behavioral guidance for an agent handling untrusted content.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a compact parenthetical list. The purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and the safety caveat is correctly placed last. No sentence goes to waste.

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 return burden and does so: it enumerates what comes back and warns about truncated text. Pagination and limits are handled by the schema, so nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 all four parameters are already documented (limit, offset, full_text, product_id with example). The description mentions the 400-character truncation behaviour but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read customer reviews of a product') plus distinguishing scope details: the star histogram, newest-first ordering, and the return contents. It is readily separable from siblings like bs_product or bs_search without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource named, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions selecting this over siblings (bs_product, bs_search), and no prerequisites. Minimum-viable routing guidance only.

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