apps_review_submissions_get_to_many_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no auth requirements, no pagination semantics, no explanation of how include/fields/filter interact, no note that this is a read-only list. A bare endpoint path is inadequate.

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?

It is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy, and the path is duplicated inside parentheses, which is pure waste. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no explanatory content at all.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides none of the context an agent needs to invoke it correctly, such as what a review submission is, what the filters mean, or what the include/fields options expand to.

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% and all 11 parameters carry their own descriptions (id, limit, include, fields_*, filter_state, filter_platform), so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds zero additional parameter meaning beyond the raw path.

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 is only the raw endpoint path 'GET /v1/apps/{id}/reviewSubmissions' repeated verbatim in parentheses. It restates the tool name/route rather than stating in plain language what it does, and gives no basis for distinguishing it from the sibling apps_review_submissions_get_to_many_relationship.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative such as apps_review_submissions_get_to_many_relationship or review_submissions_get_collection. The agent is left to infer everything from the path.

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