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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds 'Free and unmetered,' a useful cost/rate-limit behavior, and indicates the output includes reviewer decisions. It does not discuss pagination or status filtering, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the cost/reliability note is a single short second sentence that adds value without bloating the description.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and safety annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it tells the agent what the result will contain and that it is free/unmetered. It omits response shape details, but the absence of an output schema and the simple nature of the operation keep this from being a major gap.

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 0%, and the description does not explain `limit`, `offset`, or `status`. The 'reviewer's decision' phrase hints at what `status` may filter on, but there is no explicit mention of the enum values or pagination semantics, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and a clear resource ('the businesses and promotions this account has submitted') with a concrete outcome ('with the reviewer's decision on each'). This scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like num_search_places, num_get_place, and the submit tools without needing to open their schemas.

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 phrase 'this account has submitted' clearly signals this is for retrieving one's own submissions, giving the agent a clear context in which to select it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set and the resource scope make the appropriate use-case obvious enough.

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