beta_app_review_submissions__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description does not add behavioral context beyond stating it lists resources. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description is not harmful but adds no extra transparency.

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 exceptionally concise—one line with the verb, resource, and the direct API endpoint. Every element is useful and there is no extraneous text.

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?

The description lacks details about required filters (filter_build is required per schema), pagination behavior, and what a beta app review submission represents. Given no output schema, additional context about return structure would help. Still, for a list tool with well-documented schema, it is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with well-described parameters. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct per the scoring rules.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'beta app review submissions', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like beta_app_review_submissions__create (create) and beta_app_review_submissions__get (single resource). The API endpoint is also provided for direct reference.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as review_submissions__list (App Store review) or the get variant. There are no contextual cues about prerequisites or appropriate use cases.

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