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 profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: newest-first default ordering, inclusion of existing developer responses, and an important prompt-injection warning about treating public review text as data rather than instructions.

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 wasted language. The core purpose and default behavior are front-loaded, and the security warning is appropriately separate and explicit.

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 rich schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the resource, default ordering, developer-response inclusion, and safe handling of review content. However, with no output schema, it could say a bit more about the returned review fields or pagination behavior, even though cursor is documented in the input 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 high at 86%, so most parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the default sort behavior, but it does not add substantial semantic detail about filters such as ratings, territory, hasResponse, or cursor pagination beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it lists App Store customer reviews for an app. It also states the default ordering and that developer responses are included, which distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools such as respond_to_review and delete_review_response.

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 by 'Lists App Store customer reviews for an app,' but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It gives useful context like default ordering, but no routing guidance to sibling review-response tools.

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