Get raw app reviews

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new operational context: the billing model is per review returned, pages are ~50 reviews, default 1 page, and hard cap of 10 pages (~500 reviews). That cost/limit disclosure is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero filler, and the primary action plus when-to-use clause is front-loaded before the pricing detail. Slightly packed but every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the fields returned (rating, title with Apple-only caveat, text, app version, date, helpful votes, Google developer replies). Combined with cost and page limits, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 lang, sort, pages, store, app_id and country are all documented in the schema already (including Apple/Google inference rules and ranges). The description only restates page sizing ("~50 per page; default 1 page") and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Fetch raw reviews for one app") and enumerates the returned fields, immediately distinguishing it from the sibling that produces aggregated results. An agent can tell this apart from review_insights without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit positive trigger ("user wants to read or quote actual reviews or you need text for custom analysis") and an explicit negative trigger with the named alternative ("For summaries, complaints or 'what broke', call review_insights instead"), even noting why (one flat-priced call). Nothing is left to inference.

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