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), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: page size of 20, long texts truncated at 300 characters, null meaning "no stars given", and empty results for unknown ids. These are exactly the traits that would otherwise surprise a caller.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then pagination/truncation limits, then the error-handling hint. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 read-only paginated list tool with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent still needs: what comes back, how much per page, truncation, and what an empty result implies.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description adds value by clarifying the page size ("20 per page"), which usefully corrects the schema's mislabeled "20 products per page" text on the page parameter. It says nothing extra about the sort enum values beyond the schema's own ordering description.

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") and enumerates the returned fields (stars, text, pros/cons, verified buyer flag). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling dk_product by noting that the overall rating lives there rather than here.

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 concrete routing rule for the failure case: an unknown id returns no reviews, so validate it with dk_product first, and it redirects the agent to dk_product for the aggregate rating. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over other sibling tools (e.g., dk_questions for Q&A), but the context it does give is actionable.

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