List customer reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-data profile are covered. The description adds useful return-content context by naming rating, title, body, territory, and developer response, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or other operational traits beyond what the schema provides.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary listing behavior is front-loaded, and the filter tip follows immediately.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the returned review fields and explains the key unansweredOnly filter. The main remaining gap is that pagination and sorting behavior are left entirely to the schema.

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 67%, so the schema documents several parameters already. The description adds meaning specifically for unansweredOnly by explaining its purpose, but it does not clarify sort defaults, rating filtering, territory codes, or limit behavior beyond the schema text.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: list an app's App Store customer reviews. It also names returned fields, so the agent can tell this is a review-listing tool rather than a generic app/build/resource lister. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, which keeps it below a 5.

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 states one useful usage condition: use unansweredOnly to find reviews that still need a reply. That is helpful but narrow; it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives or describe when not to use it.

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