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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does: it explicitly declares 'Read-only' and lists the checks it evaluates. It doesn't describe the shape of the returned status values, but the read-only nature and checklist scope are well disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the read-only/checklist framing and the when-to-use cue. No 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?

For a read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description communicates scope and the notable orphan_review_submission_ids field. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify what the status values mean or how an agent should act on them, but the essential call context is present.

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%: notification_message is documented in-schema, but asc_app_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning, so it neither compensates nor overrides; baseline 3 fits the partial coverage.

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 resource (a pre-submit checklist) and enumerates the checks covered (build, privacy, category, copyright), plus the orphan_review_submission_ids detail. It's distinguishable from the submit siblings like press_submit_for_review, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 'before Submit for Review' clearly anchors when to use this tool relative to the submission siblings. It doesn't name an explicit alternative or exclusion, but the timing context is unambiguous.

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