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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement (Submit Kit key), the status semantics of outstanding sites ('issued'), and a non-obvious caveat that remaining allowance is computed as cap minus issued rather than a returned field or guaranteed value. It does not explicitly state read-only safety, but for a retrieval tool the disclosed caveats are the higher-value information.

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 definition is front-loaded with the usage directive, then returns, then caveats, then the sibling exclusion — a sensible order that keeps dense information scannable. It is a single long run-on with several clauses, slightly heavier than ideal, but every sentence adds distinct value.

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 and no annotations, the description fully enumerates the return fields, explains the derived 'remaining allowance' value, clarifies the status mapping for outstanding sites, and rules out the neighboring tool. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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 0% for the single 'key' parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'requires the Submit Kit key' tells the agent what credential to supply. It does not describe format or error behavior for an invalid key, keeping it out of the top band.

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 states the resource clearly (submission/progress data) and enumerates exactly what is returned (product_type, cap, sites, progress_page, and the count categories), which lets an agent identify it as a progress-retrieval tool. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_submission_status. It stops short of a single crisp verb+resource sentence, front-loading usage guidance instead, so a 5 is not quite earned.

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?

It gives explicit triggers ('Use this after report_result or to resume a session') and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative named ('Not for AgentoolRank listing review status — that is get_submission_status'). Nothing about when to select this versus siblings is left to inference.

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