Browse reviews

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 behavioral context: results are metadata only (no review text) and the month window defaults to the current month.

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 no filler; the scope/default comes first and the alternative-tool routing follows. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully signals that only metadata is returned, and the alternative for text is named. Minor gaps remain around year semantics and how limit interacts with pagination, but nothing critical for correct invocation.

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 only 33% (limit is documented; year and month are not). The description partially compensates by explaining the month default, but gives no guidance on the year parameter's format or how month/year interact, so the gap is not fully closed.

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 (browse) and resource (reviews) with a temporal scope ('posted in a given month') and the default behavior. Distinguishable from get_review, which it explicitly names.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_review when the review text is wanted, which is the key decision point among the many siblings. It doesn't cover other alternatives (e.g., get_band_reviews) or when this tool is inappropriate beyond the text distinction.

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