Check App Review status

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description is not carrying the full behavioral burden. It adds the set of possible status values, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether the result is live from App Store Connect, cached, or subject to rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the purpose and the expected result values are both delivered before the reader needs anything else.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool this is nearly sufficient: purpose and likely return values are covered. With no output schema, it could have said slightly more about what the response actually contains or how fresh it is, but nothing an agent strictly needs to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% — app_id is documented as the 'App Store Connect app ID' with a numeric pattern — so the schema does the heavy lifting for the single parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check the current App Store review status') and even enumerates the possible result values, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling (e.g., submit_for_review as the preceding step), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of related siblings such as submit_for_review or release_preflight. Usage is only inferable from the tool name itself, which is the minimum rather than real guidance.

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