Sync store reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds real value beyond them: the operation only enqueues a background job (nothing is returned immediately), the agent must poll wait_for_jobs, and an automatic daily sync already exists. It omits the failure mode (e.g., what happens if no console app is connected) and any rate/quota limits on re-queuing.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words; the core action is front-loaded and the follow-up calls come last in execution order. The final sentence is telegraphic ('Then wait_for_jobs and get_reviews') but still unambiguous.

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?

One required parameter, no output schema, and the description covers everything an agent needs: it is async, it needs polling before reading, and a daily automatic sync already exists. Missing error-path detail is minor for this complexity level.

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% and the single projectId parameter is documented in the schema as coming from get_overview. The description adds no further meaning about projectId or what a valid owner app id looks like, 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: 'Queue a background read of new customer reviews (and their current replies) from the developer console of one of the owner's apps.' The async/queued framing plus the mention of replies clearly separates it from get_reviews, which reads already-synced data.

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 explicit workflow guidance: call this, then wait_for_jobs and get_reviews. It also notes the app syncs once a day by itself, implicitly telling the agent this tool is for on-demand freshness. There is no explicit 'do not call if X' exclusion, but the sequencing is clear.

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