Store reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely non-duplicative context: replies are written by a person in the dashboard, so the agent should not attempt to respond to a review through this API. It also discloses plan gating (Pro and Team). It does not cover result volume, pagination limits, or how an omitted app parameter is interpreted.

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?

Three short sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, the read-only constraint second, and the plan note last. Nothing is padded or restated.

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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the data is and who can write replies, but leaves gaps an agent needs: how an omitted app parameter behaves, pagination expectations given an optional page cursor, and whether a default view of 'open' is applied. Adequate but not complete.

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 50%: app and view are documented, while page and rating carry no descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter meaning at all, but the two undocumented parameters are largely self-evident from their types and min/max bounds, so the gap is tolerable rather than severe.

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 gives a concrete resource (customer reviews) and scope (shared App Store and Google Play apps, sourced from the reviews inbox), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_feedback, which an agent could easily confuse with reviews.

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?

Usage is only implied by the read-only framing and the 'reviews inbox' wording; there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion against list_feedback or resolve_feedback, and no note on what to call when the agent wants feedback rather than store reviews. The 'Pro and Team' note does tell the agent this may be unavailable on other plans, which is a partial context signal.

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