Get Solutions for Rejection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states what the tool returns: 'step-by-step fixes with implementation details, code examples, difficulty level, and success rates.' This gives the agent a solid expectation of the tool's behavior, though it does not discuss error cases or side effects.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists what the response contains. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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 simple read-only tool with one fully documented parameter, the description is mostly complete: it explains the output contents and the required input. It could be strengthened by mentioning when this tool is preferred over sibling tools, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the sole parameter, rejection_reason_id, is already described as 'The rejection reason UUID.' The description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond referring to a 'specific App Store rejection reason.'

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 and resource: 'Get all solutions for a specific App Store rejection reason.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_rejection_reason by focusing on solutions/fixes rather than the reason itself.

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 implies a prerequisite—having a specific rejection reason—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like search_rejections or get_rejection_reason. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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