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

Adds real context beyond annotations: it returns an HAPP-<n> identifier and tracking address, imposes a 7-day per-agent rate limit, requires honest autonomy declaration, and states nothing is paid. Annotations already cover the non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description augments this with operational facts.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence carries an operational caveat. Slightly fragmented but cohesive and efficient.

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 submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the response shape (identifier and tracking address), rate limits, honesty requirement, and payment status. Annotations plus schema handle the rest. Minor gap: no detail on what happens after review or failure modes.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 9 parameters including enums with descriptions. The description only mentions autonomy_level explicitly, adding no syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (submits a French literary text) plus the destination (Humanuscrit human review). Distinguishes itself from siblings (get_guidelines, get_stats, get_submission_status) implicitly, being the only write operation. No explicit sibling comparison, so not a 5.

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?

Provides a per-agent rate constraint (one submission per 7 days) and an honesty requirement about autonomy level, which implicitly tells when this tool applies. No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives routing.

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