Get Real-World Rejection Cases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' signals a read-only retrieval operation and the description discloses the returned case composition. It omits pagination, ordering, or data-freshness caveats, but for a simple list tool this is a minor gap.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives the filtering options and return contents, each earning 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?

For a straightforward read-only list tool, the description covers the selection criteria and expected returned fields, and the schema fills in parameter constraints. It does not explain how multiple filters combine or clarify 'appeal status' against the boolean was_appealed, leaving a small completeness gap.

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?

All four parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description only needs to reinforce them. It restates filtering by rejection reason, app category, and appeal status, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, which warrants the baseline of 3.

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 action and resource — 'Get real-world App Store rejection cases from developers' — and details what the cases contain. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_solutions or get_guideline, which return different resources.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when the agent needs actual developer-submitted rejection cases with messages, Apple responses, and resolutions. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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