List review submissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a key behavioral limitation: the rejection message is not returned by the API and must be accessed via App Store Connect. It also clarifies that the tool returns historical submissions. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, filtering with an example, and an important limitation. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, filtering options, and a major data limitation. The limit and platform parameters are documented in the schema, and the required filter.app is implied by 'for an app'. It could mention ordering or response structure, but for a list tool with strong annotations, this is sufficient and only slightly below the highest bar.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that filter.state uses UNRESOLVED_ISSUES for 'rejected' submissions, which is not obvious from the enum values alone. This directly enriches the meaning of a parameter, justifying a score above baseline.

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 verb and resource: 'List App Store review submissions for an app (submission history).' The parenthetical 'submission history' distinguishes this from current reviews or beta submissions, and the explicit 'App Store' differentiates it from sibling tools like list-beta-app-review-submissions. This is a specific, well-scoped purpose.

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 provides clear context: listing submission history, filtering by state, and includes an example ('UNRESOLVED_ISSUES for rejected'). It also gives a when-not-to-use hint by noting the rejection message is not available via the API and points the user to App Store Connect. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or enumerate conditions for when to choose a sibling, so it stops just short of a 5.

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