list_customer_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates that the tool lists reviews and the fields included, but omits behavioral details such as pagination limits, sorting order, or rate limits. The agent is informed that the operation is a read (list) but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and return fields. The second sentence provides a sibling distinction and mentions filters. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or fluff.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core function and return fields well. However, it lacks mention of pagination (e.g., 'max 200 per request') or sorting behavior, which would further complete the context for proper agent usage.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by listing the return fields (rating, title, body, reviewer, territory), which are absent from the schema. This enriches the agent's understanding of what data will be retrieved, going beyond the schema alone.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'public App Store customer reviews', and the specific fields returned (rating, title, body, reviewer, territory). It also distinguishes from TestFlight beta feedback, making the purpose 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 explicitly distinguishes this tool from TestFlight beta feedback, giving the agent a clear when-to-use signal. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use other feedback-related sibling tools like list_screenshot_feedback or get_crash_feedback, leaving some ambiguity for agents needing to compare.

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