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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context: newest-first ordering, cursor-based pagination, and an API-key authentication requirement. It does not describe rate limits or default result size, but the added context is substantial.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and return fields first, then filtering, then paging and sibling routing. No filler, and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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 3-param read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned, how it is ordered, how to filter, how to page, and the auth requirement. Only the 'limit' parameter's behavior is left uncovered.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It explains the status filter semantics and cursor paging ('Page with next_cursor'), but says nothing about 'limit' (default 20, max 100), leaving one parameter undocumented in both places.

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 (list) and resource (your own submissions) with scope ('your own'), ordering ('newest first'), and returned fields ('headline and review status'). It also names get_submission as the tool for a different need, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening a schema.

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 use case for the status filter ('find ones waiting on you') and routes to get_submission for editor notes. Clear context for use, though it does not state explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites beyond the API key.

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