list_customer_reviews

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that reviews are public, limited to released apps, and include the developer's published response 'if any', showing that the response is optional. It could be more explicit about pagination or default ordering, but the essential behavioral traits are not hidden.

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 very compact: two sentences deliver the purpose, return fields, exclusions, and filter capabilities with no filler. Information is front-loaded, with the primary action and target resource in the first sentence and the important distinction in the second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 100% parameter coverage and the absence of an output schema, the description usefully lists the expected output fields and clarifies the difference from beta feedback. Missing details like default ordering and pagination are not critical, because the schema documents the limit parameter and its default. Overall, enough information is present for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the rating, territory, and has-response filters in natural language but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. It is helpful for quick comprehension but does not elevate the score above the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List public App Store customer reviews for a released app', and enumerates the returned fields including rating, title, body, reviewer, and territory. It explicitly distinguishes itself from TestFlight beta feedback, which is the closest sibling category and prevents confusion with the feedback-related tools. This goes beyond a vague listing and makes the tool's 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 gives clear usage context: it is for App Store customer reviews of a released app, not for TestFlight beta feedback. It also mentions filtering by rating, territory, and response presence, which outlines the main ways the tool can be used. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly say 'use this when...', so it barely misses the top tier.

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