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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the terms may allow only one attempt and that retries must reuse identical key and answer. This adds meaningful behavioral context about idempotency and the risk of consuming the submission attempt.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the most important operational instruction is front-loaded. It is concise and focused, though the first sentence could be integrated into a fuller explanation without much cost.

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?

The description covers idempotency and retry behavior, but with no output schema it does not state what the caller should expect in return or the expected format/meaning of the answer parameter. For a destructive, non-read-only action, this is adequate but not complete.

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 50%; clientToken and idempotencyKey already have schema descriptions. The description reinforces idempotencyKey behavior but does not compensate for the undocumented runId and answer parameters, which remain ambiguous.

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 title 'Submit one answer' and the description's reference to 'submission idempotencyKey' make the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the verb+resource are recoverable from the name and title.

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 gives clear preconditions: persist the idempotencyKey before calling, and on retry reuse the identical key and answer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the retry/one-attempt context is concrete and actionable.

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