get_review_submission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' conveys a read-only operation, and the mention of 'rejection reasons if any' hints at conditional output. However, it does not describe return structure, error cases, or authentication needs, which would be valuable for a tool without an output schema.

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 a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and a key feature (rejection reasons).

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 a simple two-parameter get tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It mentions the return includes rejection reasons but does not describe other return fields or behavior when no submission exists. Without an output schema, more detail about the return shape would improve completeness.

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 appId and platform are already well-documented. The description only says 'for an app' corresponding to appId, adding no extra context about parameter usage or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 retrieves the latest review submission for an app and includes rejection reasons when present. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_review_status or submit_for_review by specifying 'latest submission' and 'rejection reasons.'

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 phrase 'including rejection reasons if any' implies the tool is useful when rejection details are needed, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The intended scenario is only mildly implied.

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