Pull store reviews now

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

Discloses error codes (400 INTAKE_OFF, 429 RATE_LIMITED), the viewer restriction, deduplication against earlier pulls, that reports are subsequently classified, and that store keys are spent read-only. This goes well past the annotations' write/openWorld profile.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and efficient, with prerequisites and return shape packed in. Dense but every clause carries information; the trailing one-word 'Write.' is slightly redundant against the annotation.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ status, filed, stores }) plus prerequisites, side effects, and error behavior. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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% and the parameter is fully documented there, including the project_id alias. The description only restates that projectId is optional, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema; 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?

Names a specific verb (pull), the exact resource (App Store and Google Play reviews), and scope (one project, now). It also names the output artifact (reports with source store_review), so it is distinguishable from read-only siblings like get_store_reviews and run_store_review.

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 clear operational context: intake must be on, rate limited to one pull per 10 minutes, and blocked for viewers. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer when you merely want to read reviews (get_store_reviews), so the routing guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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