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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the possible status values and the kind of data returned (queue position, listing URL), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However it says nothing about whether the call requires authorization, how the status_token is validated, or how stale the status may be.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the parenthetical used efficiently to enumerate return values. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

No output schema means the description has to describe returns (it does, partially), but it is silent on the two required parameters, one of which is an unexplained token. For a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage this leaves meaningful gaps.

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% and both parameters are required. The description never explains what submission_id is or that status_token is an opaque credential-like value, leaving the agent to guess at formats and sourcing for a required secret.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'check review status of a submission' — and even previews the result set (pending/approved/rejected, queue position, listing URL). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_tool and search_tools, though it never explicitly differentiates itself.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., that it is the natural follow-up to submit_tool). Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word 'submission'.

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