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 non-obvious behavior: the AI summary is null for low-review products and only appears on page 0, and the rating sorts rank only the newest 500 reviews with newest-first tiebreak. These are exactly the quirks an agent would otherwise discover only by trial.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by a usage cue and then the two edge-case rules. No filler and nothing 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, yet the description still flags the nullable AI summary and its page-0 restriction. Combined with full schema coverage and a clear read-only annotation set, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the enum values: it explains what lowest_rated surfaces (complaints) and clarifies that highest/lowest_rated rank a bounded 500-review window. It does not add anything for page or limit, which the schema already covers.

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 (Read) and resource (customer reviews of a product) and enumerates exactly what is returned: average rating, star distribution, AI summary with pros/cons, and the reviews themselves. This cleanly separates it from tl_shop_reviews (store-level) and tl_product (product metadata) even though neither sibling is named.

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?

"Use as a quality check before recommending a product" gives a concrete decision context, and "sort=lowest_rated surfaces complaints" gives actionable guidance for that goal. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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