Draft a reply to a review

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

Beyond the lone readOnlyHint, it discloses significant behavior: it uses MCP Sampling and Elicitation (client-dependent) to obtain tone, NEVER auto-posts, and always returns a draft the caller must post manually. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and that no annotation conveys.

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 in the first clause, then layered with constraints in five tight, waste-free sentences. Every sentence adds a distinct operational fact (locale, elicitation, never-post, manual posting, Pro gating).

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, but the description compensates by explaining that a draft is returned and must be posted by the caller, closing the return-value gap. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description's mention of Elicitation for tone largely restates what the tone schema description already says, adding little per-parameter meaning beyond the baseline.

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?

Specific verb (draft) plus resource (a public reply to a single App Store review), with the mechanism ('via MCP Sampling, in the review's locale') made explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_reviews and triage_reviews, which the description implicitly complements.

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 clarifies the intended context (a single review, Pro feature) and the post-draft workflow ('you must post via App Store Connect yourself'), which routes the agent after drafting. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative or state when NOT to use it versus triage_reviews.

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