play__yorumlar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the API's ~1-week data window and the export fallback. It omits pagination and rate-limit behavior, but the freshness caveat is a meaningful addition.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose leads, and the data-limitation caveat follows immediately, so the most decision-relevant fact is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 read-only, open-world tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the one non-obvious constraint an agent must know. Return shape and pagination are left implicit, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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% with three well-documented parameters (dil, limit, paket_adi), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 and resource ('Google Play kullanıcı yorumlarını getirir'), so the agent knows this retrieves Play reviews rather than App Store reviews. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling play__yorum_yanitla (reply), though the verb alone implies the read-only distinction.

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?

Gives a clear situational constraint: Play only exposes roughly the last week of reviews via API, and older data requires Play Console export. That tells the agent when this tool is insufficient, but it does not name the sibling tools or state positive invocation context.

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