Get App Store reviews

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: best-effort sourcing, undocumented Apple feed, ~500 review cap per storefront, page-sourced fallback, and per-country data. No contradiction 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 three sentences, front-loads the main action, and conveys essential limitations without unnecessary detail. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers behavior, limitations, and per-country scope, making it complete for a moderately complex tool with 4 parameters.

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?

All parameters are documented in the schema with clear descriptions. The tool description adds context about the feed cap and fallback, which indirectly relates to limit and country, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond 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 recent public customer reviews for an app, specifies it is per-country and best-effort, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_app_store_apps and digest_app_store_reviews by focusing on raw review retrieval.

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 when to use (fetch reviews) and notes limitations (best-effort, capped feed, fallback), but does not explicitly compare with siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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