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

The description is unusually rich about real behavior: overwrite semantics (Apple keeps one reply per review and marks it edited), the ~24h publication lag with pending_publish→published status, and auth/plan prerequisites. However, explicitly stating that it 'Overwrites an existing response' is a non-additive update, which conflicts with the declared destructiveHint=false. That inconsistency undercuts the otherwise strong disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the action class and public consequence before operational details, and every clause (overwrite behavior, latency, auth, plan) earns its place. Dense but zero filler.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to act correctly: confirmation of public side effect, timing, expected status transitions, and permission/plan prerequisites.

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%, and the schema already explains that review_id is Sonar's id (not Apple's), that body replaces the draft text, and that delay_minutes schedules posting. The description only echoes the now-vs-delayed timing, adding little beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('publishes the reply on the App Store under the developer's name') plus the action class ('WRITE tool — PUBLIC ACTION'). An agent can immediately distinguish this from sonar_draft_review_reply or sonar_update_review_reply without opening a schema.

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 clear invocation context — post now or schedule via delay_minutes, requires an Admin-role App Store Connect key, an Indie plan, and an authorized Sonar account or write-scoped API key. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives (draft/cancel/dismiss/update reply) and when to choose them over posting.

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