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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what kind of information the tool returns, including failure reasons and retry scheduling, which is valuable beyond just calling it a status endpoint. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the language strongly implies a non-mutating lookup.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs in the key behavioral details without filler. Every clause contributes information about what the tool reports.

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 tool is simple, but the required 'origin' parameter is completely unexplained, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill the gap. The description adequately lists response facets but is incomplete 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?

The schema provides only a required string parameter named 'origin' with no description, and the tool description never defines what 'origin' means or how it should be populated. With 0% schema description coverageoverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent unable to determine the correct parameter value.

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 a submission status-checking tool and enumerates the specific outcome dimensions it reports: crawled or not, what was found, why not, and retry time. It is implicitly distinguished from submission-creation siblings like submit_solution and submit_claimed, though it lacks an explicit verb+resource construction.

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 phrase 'What became of a submission' implies the tool is used to inspect the outcome after a submission, but it does not state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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