List customer reviews

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful "Pro feature" gating constraint, but says nothing about pagination or return shape for what is clearly a paged list endpoint.

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?

Three short front-loaded sentences with no waste; the primary purpose leads. The final "Pro feature" telegraph is terse but earns its place as a prerequisite signal.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, this is minimally adequate. It omits expected behavior on default result caps beyond limit and offers no hint of the response contents.

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%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the schema (sort, limit, app_id, rating with enum/min/max). The description's "Filter by rating" only restates the rating param, adding nothing the schema lacks, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List customer reviews for an app") plus a filtering capability. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like triage_reviews or review_status, leaving the agent to infer which review-related tool applies.

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?

"Pro feature" notes a prerequisite (needs a Pro subscription), which is useful. But there is no guidance on when to use this versus triage_reviews or draft_review_response, and no exclusions are stated.

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