review_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the possible status values, which is useful, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires any special permissions, or what the return format looks like. For a simple status check, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and lists the possible statuses. There is no wasted wording; it's optimally concise.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and expected outcomes. It could be more specific about the return format or error cases, but the status list is sufficient for a simple read-only check.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter description ('App Store Connect app ID'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is complete, this is acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and clearly defines the resource: 'current App Store review status'. It enumerates the possible outcomes ('in review, waiting, approved, or rejected'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from siblings like 'submit_for_review' or 'list_reviews'.

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 implies this tool is for checking the review status of an app, which is a distinct action among the sibling tools. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple status check. No exclusions are needed.

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