Get review submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning the included relationships (state, items, app), but doesn't elaborate on response format or edge cases, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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?

One sentence with a front-loaded verb and object. It conveys the essential purpose without any fluff, and the parenthetical adds relevant detail without bloating the description.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate. It names the resource, the lookup key, and hints at return relationships, though it doesn't disambiguate from 'get-app-store-review-detail' or explain the submission lifecycle.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add much. The phrase 'state, items, app' roughly aligns with the include parameter values, but adds no new syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'single App Store review submission by ID', distinguishing it from list tools and beta-specific siblings. The parenthetical '(state, items, app, etc.)' adds clarity about the resource contents, making it clear this fetches one submission with its relationships.

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 phrase 'by ID' clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving a single known review submission, contrasting with listing tools in the sibling set. The ID parameter description 'from list-review-submissions' implies a workflow of listing first then fetching details. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, so it earns a 4.

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