explain_rejection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool is a lookup/decoding operation (no destructive effects), but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, auth requirements, or any rate limits. The description is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 concise (two sentences plus an Args block), front-loads the key purpose, and has no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema exists), the description is adequately complete. It explains what the tool does, what input to provide, and how to use it. The output schema presumably documents the return value, so no further detail is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the parameter can be a specific code (e.g., 'ITMS-91053') or the full email text, clarifying the acceptable input format.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Decode an App Store rejection code (ITMS-91053 etc) into a concrete fix.' It provides a specific verb ('Decode') and resource ('App Store rejection code'), and distinguishes from sibling tools (which focus on API declarations, policies, scans) by context.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Paste the code from the App Store Connect email.' It also explains the input format ('code: e.g. "ITMS-91053", or the full email text'). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the sibling tools are clearly different, making the use case obvious.

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