List Common App Store Rejections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the sorting by frequency and the 'most common' scope, but does not mention whether it is a read-only operation, data source, or response format. For a list tool this is adequate, but it is not deeply 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope; the second provides minimal but useful context. Every word 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, read-only list tool with full schema coverage, the description gives enough for an agent to invoke it correctly: what it lists, how it is ordered, and when it is useful. It does not describe exact output fields, but that is not critical at this complexity level.

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%—the limit parameter is fully documented with default, max, and min in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('list') and resource ('most common App Store rejection reasons') with a distinctive qualifier: 'sorted by frequency.' This scope clearly separates it from sibling tools like search_rejections or get_rejection_reason, which imply different retrieval patterns. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 'Useful for understanding what reviewers look for most' provides clear context for when to use this tool—high-level overview of common pitfalls—but does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions. It therefore earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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