apps__beta_app_review_detail__get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' verb is consistent with those annotations. The description adds the endpoint path but no additional behavioral context such as return shape or side effects, which is acceptable given the safe read-only profile.

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 short, front-loaded sentences contain exactly the needed information: what the tool reads and the exact endpoint. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for correct invocation. The main missing piece is explicit routing among the closely related beta app review detail siblings, but the app-scoped endpoint makes accidental misuse unlikely.

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 single required parameter is fully documented in the schema, including accepted forms: app name, bundle ID, or numeric Apple ID. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('beta app review detail'), and scope ('for an app'), with the explicit GET route further clarifying the app-scoped lookup. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling beta_app_review_details__get, so it stops short of full disambiguation.

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 'for an app' and the endpoint /v1/apps/{id}/betaAppReviewDetail imply when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. Notably, it does not mention that beta_app_review_details__get/list are the resource-scoped counterparts.

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