List app reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a 6-month maximum window, a 100-item page cap, and the requirement for an API-client credential. It omits any pagination-walkthrough or rate-limit detail, keeping it out of the 5 range.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and pushes constraints to the clause after the dash. Nothing is redundant, though the filter parenthetical partially duplicates what the schema already lists.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, filter surface, credential prerequisite and two hard limits. It does not describe return shape or how to page through results, but with readOnly annotations carrying the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the remaining gap is minor.

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 every one of the 13 parameters is already documented in the schema, including enum meanings for sort, site and platform. The description only recaps the filter categories and restates the two numeric caps, adding little syntax or format information beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Fetch the review list') and enumerates the filter dimensions, which cleanly separates it from siblings like agc_ratings_summary and agc_review_insights. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it does not reach the top of the scale.

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?

It gives hard constraints (6-month window, page size max 100, API-client credential) that shape how the call must be made, but never says when to prefer this tool over agc_review_insights or agc_ratings_summary. Usage is implied by the tool's nature rather than stated.

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