list_review_submissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It signals a read-only 'List' operation and enumerates the returned fields and statuses, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect characteristics (pagination, sorting, or whether COMPLETE submissions are also included) beyond the schema, leaving some behavioral assumptions implied rather than confirmed.

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 carry substantial specific information with a clear frontload of the core purpose. The status enum list is a bit long, but it serves the agent by clarifying output content; nothing is filler.

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 list tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description covers the required output semantics and the practical use case. It doesn't mention pagination or explicitly exclude alternative tools for version-specific status checks, but an agent has enough to call this correctly with app_id from the required schema.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter commentary. The description mentions status values and item types, which slightly enriches the `state` and `platform` semantics, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already describes with field-level comments.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'List App Store review submissions for an app.' It then clarifies exactly what the list contains: submission state, submission date, App Store version, and contained items (version, in-app purchases, product pages, experiments). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_app_store_versions and list_customer_reviews.

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 provides an explicit use case: 'Use this to see what is currently in App Review and what is blocking it.' It doesn't formally enumerate when-not-to-use and alternatives to other sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this when it needs App Review submission state.

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