Search App Store Rejections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the observable behavior — searching and returning matches ranked by relevance with solutions — which is useful. But it does not mention side effects (safe/read-only), any required authorization, rate limits, or limitations, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what input to provide, and what output to expect. There is no filler or repetition beyond the title, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation details: natural-language input, search behavior, and returned content (ranked reasons with solutions). It could be more explicit about result format or count limits, but nothing critical prevents an agent from calling it 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 input schema already covers the single parameter fully (100% coverage) and gives examples. The description's 'Paste Apple's rejection message or describe the issue' reinforces the schema but adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and object ('App Store rejection reasons') and explains the natural-language input, so an agent can tell it is a free-text lookup rather than an exact-ID fetch. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as list_common_rejections or get_rejection_reason, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives a clear trigger: paste Apple's rejection message or describe the issue. This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use get_rejection_reason when a specific reason/ID is already known), so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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