list_customer_reviews

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 without the description. The description does not go beyond that to mention pagination via cursor, sort/rating/territory filters, or the paged default behavior, though the schema documents these details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly the operation and object with no filler or repeated information. Every word 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?

Combined with a fully self-describing schema, annotations, and an output schema, the one-line description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose. It could add a pointer to list_apps for obtaining the app_id, although the parameter description already supplies that link.

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 100%, so each parameter already carries its own detailed description; the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description need not repeat it.

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 names a specific verb (List) and a unique resource (App Store customer reviews) scoped to an app, which distinguishes it from the report-oriented sibling tools. Even without reading the schema, an agent can tell exactly what this tool retrieves.

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 makes the use case clear—list App Store reviews for an app—and the schema source for app_id references list_apps, giving a useful precondition. It does not explicitly discuss when-not-to-use it or call out alternatives, but no sibling tool appears to offer a competing review-listing path.

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