[Read] Get App Review submission status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and describes what information is returned (review state and submitted flag). It does not detail response format or error handling, but it is transparent about the core behavior and data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and uses a parenthetical for examples. It contains no filler and every phrase earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema, the description reasonably explains the return value by naming the review state and submitted flag, with examples. It is adequate for a simple status getter, though it could list all possible states or describe the response structure in more detail.

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%, with both parameters already clearly described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as getting the App Store review state for a version, specifying the verb 'Gets' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like asc_review_get or asc_build_status by focusing specifically on submission status and provides concrete state examples.

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 implies use when needing App Review submission status, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria. The 'Read-only' prefix offers some context but is not a full usage guideline.

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