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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, closed-world operation, yet the description adds substantial non-structured context: polling semantics, the meaning of each terminal state, the quota restart time (00:05 UTC) acting as a rate limit, and the instruction to inform the user during waiting_quota. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 core purpose and return shape, then enumerates states and edge cases. Every sentence carries distinct operational information (polling, state meanings, quota timing) with no 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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers the return shape (status, message, next_step, judge details) and enumerates the possible `state` values, including the non-final waiting_quota case. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it 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 100%, so both parameters (slug, api_key) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating that the slug is for an app you own, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the review status of an app you own') and immediately scopes it to owned apps, distinguishing it from sibling tools like submit_app, publish_app and get_app. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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 concrete operational guidance: poll until `final` is true before declaring the app live, and poll rarely during `waiting_quota`. It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but the when-to-use conditions are explicit and actionable.

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