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

The annotations mark this as destructive, and the description goes further by specifying the consequences: the draft becomes read-only, the contact email is fixed, and a review request is filed. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action/return value, prerequisite, optional-field behavior, and irreversibility. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no redundant filler.

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?

The definition covers prerequisites, side effects, and return behavior ('returns the request status'). It is adequate for a two-parameter tool, though it could further specify possible status values or guidance on later checking status via the sibling status tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both required parameters. The description adds value by explaining the role of verificationToken (email that created the draft becomes the contact) and noting that optional fields may be blank, which clarifies submission requirements beyond raw parameter names.

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 the exact action ('Submits a draft for review'), the target resource ('a draft'), the receiving party ('GVRN team'), and the observable outcome ('returns the request status'). The term 'submits' clearly separates it from create/update/status sibling tools.

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?

Gives clear prerequisites: a verificationToken tied to the email that created the draft. The irreversibility warning effectively tells the agent when not to call it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or enumerate when to prefer them.

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