app_store_reviews

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the reported mean and star split are computed from the fetched reviews, not the app's lifetime rating, and that App Store Connect exposes no aggregate rating resource. This is valuable context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether responses are included by default, which are minor gaps given the schema already documents pagination parameters.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the critical caveat about the aggregate rating. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is complete for a read-only review-fetching tool. It explains the key caveat about the aggregate rating, and the schema covers all parameters. It could mention whether responses are included by default or how pagination works, but the schema's maxPages and limit parameters already imply pagination. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds context about the meaning of the returned aggregate (mean and star split) but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('App Store customer reviews and your responses'), and explicit filtering dimensions ('by rating or storefront'). It also distinguishes itself from a potential confusion by clarifying that the reported mean/split is not the app's lifetime rating, which is a meaningful differentiator from other app-related tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need App Store reviews or responses, optionally filtered by rating or storefront. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., app_store_sales, play_store_stats) makes the use case reasonably clear. The clarification about the aggregate rating resource also helps set expectations.

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