apple_review_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add one genuinely useful behavior: the demo account password is masked. However, it omits permission/auth prerequisites, whether the read is safe/non-mutating, and any rate-limit or freshness caveats, leaving real gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by exactly one non-obvious caveat. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 values need not be explained, and the description usefully previews the returned fields and the masking behavior. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around parameter sourcing.

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?

There is one parameter (version_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description would ideally clarify what a version id is or where it comes from. It says nothing about parameters, though version_id is largely self-explanatory, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3.

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 (Read) and resource (a version's App Review information) plus the concrete fields returned (contact, demo account, notes), which cleanly separates it from the write-side sibling apple_set_review_details. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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?

The closing clause frames intent ('check what Apple will see, not extract credentials'), which implies read-only inspection use, but it never states when to prefer this over apple_set_review_details or apple_review_messages. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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