review_submissions__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds meaningful context about state interpretation ('waiting on Apple or on you') and filtering capabilities, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination behavior beyond what is in the schema, or response structure. This meets the baseline with slight added value.

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 only two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and utility. The second sentence adds filtering and a cross-reference to the sibling tool. The HTTP path is appended clearly in brackets. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description adequately explains the primary use case and points to the related items list. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned data, the meaning of state values beyond the waiting implication, or the full filtering capabilities. For a list tool with rich parameters, this leaves gaps in what the agent might need to interpret responses.

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 even without additional parameter details in the description. The description only mentions 'Filter by app or state,' which maps to two of the seven parameters (filter_app and filter_state). It adds no extra meaning for limit, include, next_url, filter_platform, or fields_reviewSubmissions. The reference to review_submissions__items__list is helpful for workflow context but not parameter semantics.

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 that the tool lists App Store review submissions and their state, with the specific verb 'List' and resource 'review submissions'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling review_submissions__items__list by explicitly noting that items inside a submission come from that other tool, avoiding confusion.

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 on when to use the tool (

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