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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the required X-API-Key header, the read-only nature, field semantics, the pending-review wording, and the nightly judge schedule. The unexplained 'HELD item' terminology is slightly ambiguous, but the description is otherwise transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and auth requirement before the field list and endpoint. It avoids filler, though the field enumeration is dense and mixes API details with status semantics in a way that could be lightly organized.

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 simple optional pagination parameters and existing output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: endpoint, auth, read-only status, item fields, and status meanings. It is not fully complete because it omits explicit alternative guidance and parameter semantics, but those are minor given how much is disclosed.

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% for limit and offset, and the description does not explain either parameter or mention pagination. The parameter names and defaults in the schema are self-suggesting, but the description adds no semantic value to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource as the caller's own per-item submission outcomes and gives the exact endpoint, GET /api/v1/contribute/submissions. The 'Your OWN' qualifier distinguishes this from sibling contribution tools such as receipts, relations, or stats, and 'Read-only' further clarifies the operation.

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?

Usage context is implied: this is the tool for retrieving your own submission outcomes, and the read-only note signals it is safe to call. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over sibling tools like contribute_receipts or contribute_stats, and no exclusions are stated.

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