get_app_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context about World ID-verified reviews and the inclusion of sub-ratings/summary, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default values, or edge cases (e.g., no reviews found). This is a moderate disclosure level.

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?

Two sentences long, with the main purpose in the first sentence and supporting content in the second. No fluff or repetition of schema details. Perfectly front-loaded and compact.

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?

The tool is a straightforward review-listing operation. The description covers the key return content (ratings, comments, sub-ratings, summary) even without an output schema. It could mention pagination explicitly, but the schema already provides pagination parameters, making it sufficiently complete for the complexity level.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters (sort, limit, app_id, offset), so the description needs to add minimal extra. It does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already contains, keeping the baseline score.

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 gets reviews for a MiniApp, with specific verb+resource (Get ... reviews). It lists the exact content (ratings, comments, sub-ratings, summary) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_miniapps or get_app_details by focusing solely on 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?

The description clearly implies this is for retrieving reviews of a specific MiniApp, which sets expectations against get_app_details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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