get_review_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what statuses may be returned, whether the value is cached, or whether a submission must exist first. 'Current' is the only hint at behavior, and it is too thin.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing guidance rather than a virtue of precise wording.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage and rich annotations, most of what an agent needs is in structured fields. However, there is no output schema, so the description should ideally say what the review status looks like or reference the review submission sibling, which it does not.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The app store version ID'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no further meaning such as where to obtain the versionId or whether it accepts the internal or external ID; 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 (get) and specific resource (review status for an app store version), which is more precise than a generic 'get status'. It implicitly separates itself from get_beta_review_status and get_review_submission by scoping to an app store version, but it never names those siblings to confirm the distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus get_review_submission or get_beta_review_status, and no prerequisites or polling guidance despite being a status check. The agent must infer the usage from the name alone.

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