查询应用评分

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

注解已标明 readOnlyHint=true，描述额外补充了注解未覆盖的行为约束：仅已上架应用有数据、时间跨度限制、需要凭据。这些是有价值的上下文，但未披露分页或返回格式等行为细节。

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?

描述仅三句话，每句都有实际作用：说明功能与返回值、说明数据条件、说明认证要求。信息前置且无冗余。

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?

对于只读查询工具，描述已覆盖返回内容类型、数据可用性条件、时间跨度限制和认证要求；schema 也处理了大部分参数说明。虽无输出 schema，但对返回内容的概括已足够，缺少示例和分页说明属于次要不足。

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?

输入 schema 的参数描述覆盖率达到 83%，大多数参数已由 schema 说明，描述本身未增加参数级语义。appId 缺少描述但整体覆盖率仍高，因此给予基准 3 分。

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?

描述明确了操作对象（应用评分）和动作（查询），并指出返回汇总（平均分、各星级数量）和明细，功能边界清楚。但没有明确与兄弟工具 agc_list_reviews 区分，因此未达到满分。

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?

描述给出了明确的使用条件：仅已上架应用有数据、时间跨度不超过 6 个月、需要 API 客户端凭据。虽然没有明确说何时不使用或给出替代工具，但这些上下文足以帮助智能体判断适用场景。

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