list_google_play_reviews

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

Reveals key behavioral traits: only text-containing reviews returned, pagination (pages of 100 fetched transparently), translation support, and inclusion of review IDs. With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavior, though it could explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention rate limits.

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 sentences, tightly written with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose and key constraint, second gives usage advice, third connects to sibling, fourth notes ordering. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input and behavioral details well but omits the structure of the returned reviews (e.g., fields like text, rating, date). For a list tool, the output structure is useful context. Adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and description adds significant value beyond schema descriptions: clarifies max_star_rating usage for negative reviews, explains max_results paging behavior, and mentions translation_language for non-English reviews. Package_name is straightforward but well-contextualized.

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?

Clearly states 'List recent Google Play user reviews for an app' with specific verb and resource. Mentions that only text-containing reviews are returned, distinguishing from all reviews. Also connects to sibling tool reply_to_google_play_review by noting review IDs are included.

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?

Provides practical advice on using max_star_rating to focus on negative reviews with an example. Notes ordering by last modified date. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons needed since no direct sibling for same resource, but guidance is clear and actionable.

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