Store reviews inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: Play only exposes ~7 days so history accumulates per sync, the enumerated `state` values including error/disconnected, and the boundary that replies are sent only by the owner in the app so this tool cannot write. It omits pagination/limit behavior and any rate or freshness caveats beyond the 7-day note.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the body is one long run-on sentence with stacked parentheticals that blends provenance, return shape, and caveats. Most content earns its place, yet the structure makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 carries the return contract and does so thoroughly: period summary metrics, markets, keyword ideas, the filtered review records including draft replies, and the sync state. An agent knows what it will get back and what preconditions matter.

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 100%, so the schema already documents days, limit, stars, market, search and replied; the description only restates the filter set. It also names an 'app version' filter that has no corresponding parameter, which adds slight noise rather than meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Customer reviews of one of the owner's apps') plus scope: read-only view of locally stored data produced by sync_reviews. It is clearly distinguishable from sync_reviews (which fetches) and draft_review_reply (which composes), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives real usage context: the data comes from a prior sync, the `state` field tells whether reviews are loaded, and 'add winners with add_keywords' routes the agent to the right sibling for the keyword-idea output. It stops short of an explicit 'use get_ratings instead when…' exclusion against the ratings sibling, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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