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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile, so the description is free to add payload behavior instead. It does: it discloses that only the FIRST file comes back with content inline, and that the response bundles matches, web sources, and a cross-submission score rail in one call. Minor gap: no mention of response size or truncation behavior for large checks.

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-loaded with the aggregate payload description, then the defaulting rule, then the follow-up routing — a sensible order. The payload sentence is a long comma-chained list, but every clause maps to a distinct part of the returned data, so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so item by item (files, matches with line ranges, web sources, score rail). Combined with annotations covering safety and the schema covering both parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's note about omitting submission_id largely restates the schema text. It adds only mild reinforcement rather than new meaning such as defaulting/ranking semantics for ties.

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 (view one submission) and enumerates exactly what it returns: files, peer/AI matches with line ranges, web sources, and a rail of sibling submissions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings because it names the two follow-up tools (get_submission_file, get_match_counterpart) that handle the code-reading case this one does not cover.

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 a concrete selection rule ("Omit submission_id for the highest-scoring submission") and routes the agent forward to get_submission_file and get_match_counterpart when actual code is needed. It does not explicitly contrast with codequiry_get_results or codequiry_get_check_summary, which is the main remaining gap.

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