get_asc_review_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description implies a read operation ('Get'), but does not explicitly state safety, idempotency, or any constraints such as required permissions or rate limits. For a simple get operation, this is minimally adequate.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second provides usage guidance.

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 simple get status tool with one parameter, the description is largely complete. No output schema exists, but the description says it returns 'status' implicitly. It does not describe the format of the response or possible values, but the tool's purpose is straightforward.

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% (app_id is described in the schema). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool gets the current App Store review status for an app. The verb 'get' and resource 'App Store review status' are specific. Does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'get_asc_release_status', but the name and description imply a difference.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Call this after submitting to the App Store to monitor progress and check for blockers.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but the usage context is clear.

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