play_list_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is mildly informative, but the description does not disclose how 'recent' is determined, whether results are paginated, what ordering is applied, any authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 concise phrase with no wasted words and is fully front-loaded. However, it borders on under-specification: at a few words, it is too terse to carry the information an agent needs for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what packageName refers to, what maxResults accepts, what the return payload looks like, or how 'recent' is scoped. The core action is stated, but nearly everything needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 0%, and the description does not compensate. Neither maxResults nor packageName is explained in the description or the schema; the description 'Lista reviews recentes' does not clarify that packageName identifies the app whose reviews are listed or that maxResults caps the number of returned reviews. The parameter names are suggestive but the description adds zero meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 'Lista reviews recentes' states a clear verb ('list') and resource ('recent reviews'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from the sibling play_reply_review (which is about responding to reviews, not listing them). However, it adds a qualifier 'recentes' that isn't defined anywhere and doesn't mention scope like package context, so it falls slightly short of full clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among the siblings there are related tools like play_reply_review and play_status, but the description gives no context about when listing reviews is appropriate, what prerequisites exist (e.g., needing a packageName), or when another tool should be chosen instead.

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