hive_app_reviews

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description states 'An app Hive does not hold yet is added on the first call' — a state-changing side effect (and one that overlaps with the add_app sibling). The disclosure is otherwise useful (reviewer names omitted, star distribution of returned rows, newest-first ordering), but a description that documents a write while the annotation promises read-only is a direct contradiction of the structured safety signal.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core scope (which app, which storefront, ordering, returned fields) is front-loaded, followed by the two exceptional facts: reviewer names are excluded and unknown apps are auto-added.

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 return contract by listing the returned fields and the star distribution. It stops short of explaining truncation/pagination (what happens when the store has more reviews than limit) and excluding reviewer names. Given the low complexity and 100% schema coverage, this is nearly 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 description coverage is 100% — appId, limit (1-200, default 50) and country (default us) are all documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal semantics: 'one storefront' clarifies country is single-valued and 'recent' implies the limit is applied to newest rows, which is consistent with the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('recent reviews'), the scope ('one storefront, newest first') and the exact payload returned (stars, title, text, version, date, plus star distribution). It is very clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts the near-identical siblings get_reviews, search_reviews, summarize_reviews or get_review_stats, so an agent still has to guess which review tool to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Any app's recent reviews in one storefront' plus the note that an unknown app is added automatically effectively tells the agent it need not call add_app first. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many review-related siblings, so the guidance is minimal but not absent.

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