Read reviews

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds non-redundant details: Metacritic's fixed-sample limitation, no pagination beyond the sample, critic/user score scale differences, and the presence of publication/link for critic reviews. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to set expectations.

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?

Five sentences, all substantive. Begins with the purpose, then prerequisites, then constraints, then scoring caveat. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Combined with the rich input schema and output schema, the description covers the tool's usage workflow, sample limitations, and score handling. It leaves no critical behavioral gaps for an autonomous agent.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches this by explaining offset's limitation ('The sample itself cannot be paged past') and the meaning of sentiment ('which Metacritic groups itself'), adding operational nuance beyond the schema's raw definitions.

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?

The description opens with 'Read individual reviews of a Metacritic entry, from critics or from users' – a specific verb and resource that clearly differentiates from sibling tools (search_titles, browse_titles, get_title). It also states the prerequisite of obtaining slug and kind from search_titles, reinforcing the tool's role.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Get the slug and kind from search_titles first', providing a clear prerequisite. It also warns about the fixed sample and inability to page past it, and cautions against averaging critic and user scores. It doesn't name alternative tools directly, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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