list_review_submissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds almost nothing: it does not explain pagination behavior despite the 'next' parameter, nor ordering, result size, or what 'current' means. For a paginated list tool, that is a notable gap.

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 short sentence with zero waste, and the resource is front-loaded. It is arguably under-written rather than padded, so brevity here is close to terseness.

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?

A three-parameter paginated list tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage needs the description to explain cursor pagination and the required appId. The description covers only the bare purpose, leaving an agent unable to page through results from the definition alone.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it does not. It never mentions appId, limit, or how the 'next' cursor should be used, leaving all three parameters semantically bare.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('App Review submissions'), scoped to a single app. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the mutation sibling create_review_submission, but the phrase 'recent and current' is somewhat vague about the exact time window.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, and the sibling list includes both 'list_reviews' (customer reviews) and 'get_review', which an agent could easily confuse with App Review submissions. The description does not state any preconditions or exclusions.

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