Get customer reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that replies and review IDs are returned and that ordering defaults to newest-first, but says nothing about pagination (limit max 200), rate limits, or auth requirements. Useful context, not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the default ordering and the sibling pointer packed in without waste.

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 sketches the return payload (reviews, published replies, review IDs), which is the key thing an agent needs. It omits pagination behavior and how the filters (rating, territory, unanswered) compose, leaving a small gap for a 6-parameter listing tool.

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 coverage is 50% and the description only touches the sort default ('newest first'), which merely restates the schema's default value. It adds no syntax or meaning for app, limit, rating, territory, or unanswered beyond what the schema already documents, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds value.

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?

Specific verb ('Lists') plus resource ('App Store customer reviews') and scope ('newest first by default'). It also names what comes back (published replies, review IDs) and cross-references the sibling reply_to_review, so an agent can place it precisely in the review workflow.

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 establishes the default retrieval context ('newest first by default') and routes the agent to reply_to_review for the downstream reply action. There is no alternative review-listing sibling to contrast against and no explicit when-not condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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