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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: per-entry spend cap, Authorization: Bearer <JWT> requirement, the ≤64 KB output limit, and the post-submission pipeline (schema check then grading with valid/score/reason). Annotations only declare it is a non-idempotent write in an open world; the description explains what actually happens.

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?

Front-loads the action and deadline before drilling into the three modes, and every clause carries new information. It is dense but not padded; the long mode enumeration is the main reason it is not a model of brevity.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (validity, score, reason) and covers auth, per-mode inputs, spending caps, and validation. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 50% and the description carries the enum semantics the schema omits: it defines all three 'via' modes and their inputs, and clarifies that 'listing' only applies when the task has no capability. It adds the direct-mode size cap but does not explain task_id/entry_id form.

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 and resource with scope: 'Submit your entry's ONE result before the deadline.' The single-submission constraint and the entry/task pairing distinguish it from task_enter, task_post, and task_receipt without needing the schema.

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 explicit per-mode conditions for choosing via='runtime', 'direct', or 'endpoint', including when 'listing' applies (runtime on a task with no capability). It does not name sibling tools as alternatives or state prerequisites such as already having entered the task, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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