Get Apple Review Guideline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns the guideline text and any related rejection reasons, covering the main behavioral expectation. It does not discuss error behavior or input normalization, but for a simple read-style lookup this is adequate.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The purpose and input format are front-loaded, followed by the return behavior. Every clause 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?

For a one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the input format and the return content. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting this is not the tool for searching or listing guidelines, but the sibling distinction is reasonably inferable.

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%, and the schema property already documents the guideline_number format with examples '2.1', '4.3', '5.1.1'. The tool description repeats essentially the same examples, adding no meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Look up'), a specific resource ('Apple App Store Review Guideline'), and the exact lookup key (section or subsection number). This clearly distinguishes it from the search-oriented sibling tools like search_rejections and list_common_rejections.

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 phrase 'by section or subsection number' clearly conveys when to use this tool: when the agent already knows a specific guideline number such as '2.1' or '5.1.1'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended context is clear.

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