app_rejection_reason_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description is consistent with those annotations ("Read") but adds no behavioral context of its own, such as error behavior for an invalid rejectionReasonId or what openWorld access implies.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste, appropriate for a simple read tool. It is arguably too terse to be maximally helpful, but nothing in it is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, annotations are rich, and parameters are fully documented, so the description only needs to carry routing and context. It falls short on sibling differentiation against app_rejection_reasons_query, which is the one gap an agent would actually need filled.

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 all three parameters (profile, adAccountId, rejectionReasonId) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("App Store app rejection reason") with singular scope ("one"). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling app_rejection_reasons_query tool, which likely lists the same resource.

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 guidance on when to use this single-item lookup versus app_rejection_reasons_query, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid ad account or profile. The agent must infer the choice from the tool name alone.

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