apps__customer_reviews__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds filter/sort behavior and the endpoint, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default sorting, or response shape. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one concise sentence plus the endpoint, front-loading the core purpose and key options. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 list tool with a rich schema and safe annotations, the description covers the core action and important filter/sort behavior. It does not mention pagination, but the schema includes limit and next_url, and the description is still sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a helpful summary of key filter and sort parameters but does not provide meaningful syntax or defaults beyond what the schema already includes.

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 'List customer reviews for an app' with a specific verb and resource, and includes the endpoint [GET /v1/apps/{id}/customerReviews]. It differentiates from the version-scoped sibling app_store_versions__customer_reviews__list by explicitly scoping to an app.

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 provides clear usage context: filter by rating or territory, and sort by -createdDate for the newest reviews. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for most listing use cases.

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