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

The description discloses that the operation is read-only and explains the meaning of pending_review, accepted, rejected, and HELD items, including the judge's reason verbatim in review_note. It also mentions the nightly judging time (21:15 UTC). However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when the API key is invalid.

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 key purpose, then details the item fields and endpoint. It is dense but not bloated; every sentence adds useful context. The structure is a bit list-heavy, but it remains readable and efficient.

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 read-only list endpoint with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main return fields and the authentication requirement. However, it does not explain pagination behavior, error cases, or how the limit/offset parameters interact with the response, which an agent might need for correct invocation.

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 for the two parameters, limit and offset. The description does not explicitly explain limit and offset, but the names are self-explanatory and the schema provides defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists the user's own per-item submission outcomes and explicitly names the endpoint GET /api/v1/contribute/submissions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like contribute_receipts and contribute_stats by focusing on per-item submission outcomes, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 implies usage context: it is a read-only endpoint for the user's own submission outcomes, and it mentions forwarding the gai_ key as X-API-Key. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as contribute_receipts or contribute_stats, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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