appstore__yorumlar

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: results are sorted newest to oldest, can be filtered by rating or country, and existing developer replies are included. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place by covering filtering, sorting, use cases, and the inclusion of existing replies. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 read-only, open-world list tool with full parameter coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, sorting, and reply inclusion. It could optionally state the return shape per review or pagination behavior, but the essentials are present.

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%, so all parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description mentions filtering by rating or country, which maps to two parameters, but adds no syntax or format details 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?

The description states a specific verb (getirir) and resource (App Store müşteri yorumları), and the App Store qualifier distinguishes it from the Play sibling (play__yorumlar) and from the reply tool (appstore__yorum_yanitla). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use scenarios: summarize reviews, find complaints, or prepare response drafts. It also notes filtering and sorting behavior. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so no explicit exclusions.

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