Get user reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds rich behavioral detail: results are capped per call (200 App Store, 100 Play), cursor behavior, platform-specific limitations, and a security warning that review content is untrusted and should be treated as data, not instructions. It also notes that Play only returns reviews for apps that have any. This fully discloses behavior beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 longer than average but every sentence serves a purpose. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage nuances, platform limits, and a security note. There is minimal redundancy, though the security section is verbose and could be tightened. Still, it earns a high score for structure and relevance.

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 tool with 6 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: default behavior, filtering intent, pagination caveats, platform constraints, and a security warning about untrusted content. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results safely. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structure, and the description fills all other gaps.

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 100%, so every parameter has a description. The tool description adds significant value by explaining usage patterns: 'Omit appId to sweep the whole portfolio' clarifies the omission semantics, 'set maxRating to 2 to triage complaints' provides a concrete use case, and 'cursor' is contextualized as a continuation token with a single-app constraint. This exceeds a baseline of 3 because it provides actionable intent beyond the schema's basic field 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 the tool returns recent user reviews from both stores in one list, newest first. It names the specific resource (reviews) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_releases (releases) and get_app (app info). The verb 'get' is explicit and the scope is 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 gives explicit usage guidance: omit appId to sweep the whole portfolio, set maxRating to 2 to triage complaints, and clarifies that cursor pagination only works when targeting a single app (a portfolio sweep has no single next page). It also warns about platform limits (Google Play only returns last week's reviews). This goes beyond generic context to actionable selection criteria.

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