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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the meaning of the 'clarification' status (Embers is waiting on the user) and the 'closed' status read-only behavior, which goes beyond the schema. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or rate limits, but these are not critical for a simple read-only list.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and scope, then efficiently packs the status list with useful clarifications. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant wording.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, simple listing operation) and the presence of an output schema (which the description need not explain), the description is complete. It specifies exactly what is returned (submissions with statuses) and adds value by explaining the meaning of two important statuses. An agent can invoke this tool correctly with no additional information.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). With no parameters to document, the description naturally does not add parameter-level detail. The baseline score of 4 for 0-parameter tools applies here.

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 states the action ('List') and scope ('the calling user's own submissions'), specifies the resource type ('bug reports and feature requests'), and enumerates all possible statuses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_submission (retrieves one submission) and create_submission (creates one).

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 description clearly indicates this is for listing the caller's own submissions, which distinguishes it from any hypothetical tool that lists all submissions. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools like get_submission for single-item retrieval or mention when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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