asc_list_customer_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the sorting order and optional developer response inclusion, but omits details on pagination, rate limits, error handling, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds distinct information, with no unnecessary words. Excellent structure.

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 should give more detail about returned data. It mentions reviews and developer responses but not fields like rating or text. The limit and territory parameters are not explained thoroughly, leaving gaps for an agent to understand full behavior.

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 50%; the description adds meaning for includeDeveloperResponse and implies appId usage, but does not explain the limit or territory parameters. It provides some value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states it retrieves customer reviews for a specific app, sorted newest-first, and distinguishes itself from siblings like asc_reply_to_review (which modifies) and asc_list_apps (which lists apps). The verb 'get' and resource 'customer reviews' are specific and unambiguous.

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 description implies usage when seeking recent reviews for an app, but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or mention alternatives. However, the context (sibling tools) and clear purpose make it obvious; no guidance is needed beyond what is stated.

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