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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return fields, enumerates every `state` value with its real-world meaning (approved/rejected/flagged/removed, including reading `reason` and republishing), and explains the quota-blocked state and its reset time. It stops short of covering failure modes such as invalid slug or auth errors, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Opening sentence front-loads the purpose, then each subsequent sentence carries distinct load: return fields, polling rule, end-state enumeration, and the quota special case. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does (status, message, next_step, judge details plus the state machine). Combined with the polling and quota guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this and interpret results correctly.

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 documented in the schema. The description only restates that the app must be one you own and adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the review status of an app you own') and scopes it to the review-status facet, which no sibling (get_app, list_my_apps, submit_app) covers. An agent can distinguish it immediately 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 explicit operational guidance: poll until `final` is true before declaring the app live, and treat `waiting_quota` as non-final with a concrete remedy (poll rarely, inform the user, restart at 00:05 UTC). This is when-to-use and how-often guidance that nothing else in the tooling provides.

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