get_reviews

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the android window is shorter, newCount null means an older record (read as unknown, not zero), android: null means pending first measurement, and an empty list means no reviews. This is real interpretive guidance beyond structured fields, though pagination and refresh cadence are still unstated.

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?

A single tight paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then handles each field's semantics in sequence. The null-handling clauses are dense but each earns its place by preventing misreading of the data.

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 correctly carries the burden of explaining the return shape (list, android, newCount) and their null/empty edge cases. It is complete enough to call and interpret the tool, missing only cross-tool routing guidance relative to other review tools.

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%, so both appId and country (including the default-to-first-country behavior) are already fully documented in the schema. The description says 'for one country,' which is consistent but adds no format or syntax detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Recent reviews for one country,' and immediately enumerates what the response contains. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like search_reviews, get_review_stats, or summarize_reviews, which also touch review data.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite several adjacent review tools (search_reviews, get_review_stats, summarize_reviews, hive_app_reviews) in the sibling list. The agent must infer when this is the right call.

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