App Reviews for iOS and Android

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one genuinely useful disclosure — that reviewer names and avatars are stripped from results — but it omits whether this is a read-only scrape, whether it costs money or consumes Apify credits, how it handles failures or empty results, and what fields are actually returned.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification for a five-parameter scraping tool rather than true conciseness.

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 five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 40% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks platform-specific input formats, async/wait semantics, result shape, and the meaning of half the parameters — information the structured fields do not supply.

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 only 40%: 'country', 'language', and 'maxReviewsPerApp' have no documented meaning anywhere, and 'country'/'language' format expectations (ISO codes? names?) are ambiguous. The description compensates for none of this, adding no parameter context beyond what little the schema already states.

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 and resource: 'Collect recent public App Store and Play reviews', which names both platforms covered. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools, but those are obviously different domains (sitemaps, SEO audits, screenshots, PDFs), so disambiguation is implicit rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisite information, and no mention that the 'waitSeconds' parameter and 'Apify run' wording imply a paid external actor invocation. The word 'recent' is left undefined, so an agent cannot tell what time window or volume to expect.

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