List customer reviews

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so "Read-only" is redundant. The description earns credit for details annotations cannot carry: the default newest-first ordering and the fact that review text is returned trimmed, which sets expectations about content fidelity. It stops short of mentioning pagination or result-volume behavior.

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 tight sentences with the most decision-relevant facts first (read-only, resource, ordering) followed by the returned fields and filters. Nothing is padded or restated.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main gap it needed to fill. The one omission is that results are paginated via the cursor parameter and a "More available" line; an agent could miss that without reading the schema closely.

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 five parameters are already documented with types, bounds, and formats. The description only restates that rating and territory act as optional filters, adding no new syntax or interaction semantics beyond the schema, which lands at 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?

"Lists an app's App Store customer reviews" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the surrounding clauses pin down scope (single app), ordering (newest first), and returned fields. The resource name alone distinguishes it from siblings like list_builds, list_beta_testers, and list_app_store_versions.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description establishes that this is the reviews-listing tool and notes the optional rating/territory filters, but never states when to reach for it versus get_app or the version-listing siblings, nor any prerequisites such as needing a resolvable app identifier. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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