beta_app_review_details__list

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) clearly indicate a safe, idempotent, read-only operation, so the bar for description is lower. The description does not contradict these annotations and correctly implies listing. It could add behavioral context about pagination or response size, but the annotations already convey the safety 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?

The description is short and to the point with two sentences. Every word earns its place, and the HTTP endpoint suffix is informative. It is front-loaded and no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool is a list operation with 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools that might be confused, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return structure, pagination, or common pitfalls like the note about the bundle ID in the filter_app schema description being in the schema but not reiterated in the tool description.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the parameter names and their schema descriptions. It does not provide additional usage context or constraints beyond what is in the input schema.

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 it lists beta app review details, but is generic and does not distinguish it from other similarly named tools like 'beta_app_review_details__get' or 'beta_app_review_details__update'. The appendage of the HTTP path is marginally helpful but does not provide a unique scope or verb-resource distinction.

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 list tool versus the singular 'get' or the 'update' counterpart. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and the filter_app parameter is described but not contextualized as a main filter requirement.

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