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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes further by disclosing the two non-obvious states: setup_required (no store app connected, tell the user to open the error link, do not report zero reviews) and syncing (first sync in progress). That state-handling guidance is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded with the purpose, then the call-ordering rule, then the filter example, then edge-case states. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still names the key fields an agent needs to chain calls. Error and in-progress states are both covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing for a single-optional-param read tool.

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 enum is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small but real clarification — that {"platform": "google_play"} means Android apps only — which maps the enum value to a human-meaningful concept.

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 ('Lists the App Store and Google Play apps connected to your Review Expert team') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, platform, store id, last sync). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_app_reviews, which require the id this tool returns.

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 says 'Call this first: other tools take the returned id as app_id', which is a direct when-to-use rule tied to the sibling tools. It also gives a concrete filtering example and prescribes behavior for the setup_required and syncing states.

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