Summarise what reviewers say

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

The description adds the behavioral caveat that individual review texts are not available from the API, which is beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations. It also lists exactly what the summary includes, setting expectations for output granularity. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the key output details, and the second adds a valuable limitation. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only summary tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the input (via schema), the output contents, and a key limitation. An agent has sufficient information to invoke the tool and interpret results.

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% for the single parameter 'product', which is well-defined as 'Numeric product id or Galaxus product URL'. The tool description does not add further detail about this parameter, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: summarizing customer reviews with average rating, rating count, and pros/cons. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on review summaries (e.g., galaxus_get_product likely returns product details). The additional note that individual review texts are not exposed further clarifies its scope.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when a summary of customer sentiment is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like galaxus_get_product or galaxus_related_products. The usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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