Product reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: default ordering (newest first) and the absence of star ratings, which saves the agent a wasted call expecting rating data.

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 short sentences, zero waste: the core behavior first, the routing/usage note second. Nothing is repeated from 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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not needed, and the description covers the key surprises (no ratings, photo filtering, ordering). Pagination behavior and the upper page bound are left to the schema, which is acceptable here.

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 the schema already documents page, limit, product format, and with_photos. The description adds the 'newest first' ordering note, but that is already implied by the page parameter description, so it is baseline territory.

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 comments on a product') plus distinguishing attributes: newest-first ordering, verified-buyer flag, photos. It also carves out what it is not (ratings live in kh_product), though it doesn't differentiate itself from the remaining ten siblings.

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 an explicit situational trigger ('Use as a quality check before recommending a product') and routes the agent to kh_product for ratings and rating counts, which is a real alternative-selection cue. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use it, but the context is clear.

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