Digest App Store reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds crucial behavioral context: it uses MCP sampling to compress reviews, the digest is always English regardless of storefront language, and it requires sampling support. No contradictions with annotations.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose: function, differentiation, and requirement. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers what the tool does, its output format, language behavior, and usage constraints. It is complete for an agent to decide to invoke this tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description echoes the `limit` parameter and mentions the digest language, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. The `focus` parameter, for example, is only described in the schema.

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 fetches reviews and compresses them into a structured digest (themes, complaints, praise, sentiment) via MCP sampling. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_app_store_reviews by advising to use that for raw reviews. The verb 'digest' and resource 'App Store 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 explains when to use (to avoid context overload), when not to use (when raw reviews are needed, use get_app_store_reviews), and requirements (client must support MCP sampling or have server-side fallback). This provides explicit guidance on tool selection.

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