Get Rejection Reason Details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return content (message template, categories, guideline reference, tags) and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not address missing IDs, error behavior, authorization, or other edge cases. This is acceptable for a simple get operation but not richly transparent.

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. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and output contents, and the second sentence immediately gives actionable guidance on obtaining the required parameter. Every part 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 single-parameter get operation with no output schema, the description covers the core needs: what is returned and how to get the ID. It is mostly complete, though it could briefly note that a missing or invalid ID may produce an error or empty result. Overall, the definition gives an agent enough context to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already describes the 'id' parameter as a UUID with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by telling the agent the ID comes from search_rejections, which clarifies where to obtain the parameter value and avoids guesswork.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific App Store rejection reason'), and enumerates what details are included: message template, affected categories, guideline reference, and tags. This differentiates it from sibling search_rejections, which finds IDs rather than returning full details.

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 explicitly instructs agents to 'Use search_rejections first to find the ID,' establishing a clear prerequisite and usage flow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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