Store review status

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

With annotations already covering readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, the description still adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the result vocabulary (ok | finding | unknown, noting 'unknown' means not checked rather than healthy), explains the never_run status and that it is triggered from the console, and states the return shape. This is exactly the extra behavior an agent needs when annotations alone would leave gaps.

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 main purpose and the 'what gets checked' list are front-loaded, and the operational notes (result states, never_run, return shape, read-only) follow at the end. It is dense and long but each clause carries information; the illustrative examples in parentheses ('never leaves your phone') earn their place as clarification.

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, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields (projectId, checkedAt, status, results, checklist, findings) plus the status/finding value semantics, which is complete for a single-parameter read. Only minor details such as auth or expected latency are absent, and those are not essential here.

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?

There is a single parameter (projectId) with 100% schema description coverage, including the default-to-server-config note, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about projectId or how the default project is resolved, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Return the latest store review of an app') and then enumerates exactly what a store review covers (listing drift, claim-vs-code contradictions, privacy labels, screenshots, checklist). This makes it clearly distinct from user-review siblings, but it never names an alternative such as run_store_review or get_store_reviews, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'it runs from the console' and the never_run explanation hint that this tool reads existing results rather than triggering a run. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, but the read-only framing and 'not legal advice' caveat give the agent enough to infer the correct context.

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