get_seed_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'retrieves' data, implying a read-only operation, and mentions the data source (SQLite). However, it does not detail any side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes. For a retrieval tool this is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose. Every word contributes to the meaning with no waste.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a reasonable expectation of what will be returned (reviews categorized by specific dimensions). It does not explicitly describe pagination or return format, but for a retrieval tool with clear schema-covered parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema describes all three parameters (limit, product_id, has_media_only) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds context about categorization (pain points, objections, media attachments), which helps the agent understand the output structure and how has_media_only relates to media attachments. However, it does not add syntax or formatting details beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('seed customer reviews from SQLite'), and clearly states the categorization dimensions (pain points, objections, media attachments) and the intended use (video scripts). It distinguishes this tool from siblings, none of which are about reviews.

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 the context of use ('for video scripts') and makes it clear this tool retrieves seed reviews, which is a distinct function from siblings like 'audit_seller' or 'search_affiliate_products'. While not explicitly stating when not to use it, the purpose is clear and contextually relevant enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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