apple_list_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose safety traits (e.g., read-only), response behavior, or limitations like pagination or sorting defaults.

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 extremely concise at 5 words, which is acceptable for a simple tool but misses the chance to add valuable context. It is not verbose but could include more information without becoming lengthy.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention expected response format, pagination, or behavior when limit is omitted. Sibling tools like google_list_reviews likely have richer descriptions, making this one feel incomplete.

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?

Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (appId). The description adds no meaning to sort or limit beyond the schema. For example, it doesn't clarify how sorting by '-createdDate' differs from 'createdDate'.

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 'List customer reviews for an app' clearly states the verb (list), resource (customer reviews), and scope (for an app). It accurately describes the tool's function without ambiguity. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like google_list_reviews, but the tool name includes 'apple_' which resolves that.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apple_respond_to_review or apple_update_review_detail. There is no mention of prerequisites, or 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.