[Read] Get App Review information

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool never returns the demo account password, only a boolean flag (`demoAccountConfigured`). It also explicitly labels itself 'Read-only,' which is important for trust. Missing are details like permissions required or error handling, but for a simple getter this is 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only. Gets...' and no filler. Every clause adds value: read-only status, field list, and an explicit security caveat. Highly concise and well-organized.

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?

Given the simple 2-parameter schema and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of what the tool returns, including a specific field name (`demoAccountConfigured`) and the critical exclusion of the password. It does not describe response shape or error cases, but for this scope it is sufficiently complete to guide an agent.

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% (both appId and version have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond that, only indirectly associating 'version' with the version parameter. It does not elaborate on parameter formats or edge cases, so it does not exceed 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('reviewer-only info for a version'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (contact name/phone/email, demo account requirement/name, review notes). It also distinguishes from siblings like asc_review_update by emphasizing this is read-only and focused on reviewer-only data, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 gives clear context: it is read-only, retrieves specific reviewer-only fields, and explicitly excludes the demo account password (only returns whether one is configured). This implies when to use it (when you need review contact/notes) and when not (if you need the password). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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