apple_review_messages

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 that this bypasses the public API and reads via the console's internal API inside a dedicated Chrome session, plus the login-failure remedy (store_browser_session). It stops short of describing rate limits, session prerequisites, or failure modes beyond login.

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 compact sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the implementation caveat second. The parenthetical is slightly dense but every clause carries actionable information.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers the key operational risk (internal API / session login). Only app_id semantics are left unaddressed, which is minor for a single required identifier.

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 0% and the single app_id parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no semantics for app_id; it is adequate only because a lone, self-evident identifier keeps the ambiguity low.

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 a specific resource (review messages / Resolution Center, rejection reasons). It is distinguishable from siblings like apple_reply_review and apple_review_details, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with apple_review_details.

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?

Usage is implied by the Resolution Center framing and the failure hint to check store_browser_session, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance relative to apple_review_details or apple_reply_review.

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