apps__review_submissions__list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and reinforces the read-only nature. No additional behavioral details like rate limits, response structure, or pagination behavior are given. Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Single sentence with the endpoint, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. No unnecessary words, efficiently communicates the core 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?

Lacks description of return format (no output schema) and does not explain pagination behavior (limit, next_url) or how filters and includes work. Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more operational context.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context that the 'id' parameter is the app identifier, which is useful since the schema only says 'Resource identifier.' This is marginal improvement, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('review submissions belonging to an app'), with the endpoint specifying the app ID. It distinguishes the app-specific scope from the similar sibling 'review_submissions__list' via the name and 'belonging to an app' phrasing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'review_submissions__list' (global) or other list tools. An explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use statement is missing.

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