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

Annotations already signal it is non-destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: execution is asynchronous, returns an operation ID, requires polling, and the quote bounds spending and rights scope. No contradiction with 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?

Three compact sentences with no filler. The key action and async nature are front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: execution semantics, quote characteristics, and follow-up polling behavior.

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 async submission tool with no output schema, it covers the essential invocation surface: required input type, async execution, operation ID, polling destination, and separation from removal. It could add a note about why idempotency_key matters, but the annotations already cover idempotency semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains quote_id by describing the quote's role (bounds spending, contains rights scope/input), but it never mentions idempotency_key or its purpose, leaving that parameter only self-explanatory by name.

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 uses a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('pre-approved evidence quote'), and immediately clarifies it is asynchronous. It also distinguishes the action from removal ('Submission is distinct from removal'), reducing ambiguity against siblings like submit_takedown or prepare_takedown.

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 gives clear context: use this when you have a pre-approved quote and need to execute it asynchronously. It also tells the agent to poll get_operation for the result. It does not explicitly name create_quote as the alternative for quotes that are not yet approved, so no full exclusion list.

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