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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect profile. The description adds that it is 'free and unmetered', which is useful cost context beyond annotations, but does not elaborate on response format, pagination, or any potential side-effects or auth requirements. With strong annotations, the added value is modest but adequate.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and adding the 'free and unmetered' note. It conveys essential information without waste, making it very concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and is a simple listing operation with strong annotations. The description covers the purpose and cost, but does not specify the response shape, pagination behavior, or parameter semantics. For a simple read-only list with an intuitive schema, this is adequate but not fully complete; it could benefit from mentioning that status filters results and that limit/offset are for pagination.

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 0%, meaning the description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, offset, status). However, the schema itself has clear names and types: limit has min/max, offset is an integer, and status is an enum with obvious values. The description's mention of 'submissions' and 'reviewer decided' gives context but not parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema is fairly self-documenting, though description could add value by mentioning that status filters by submission state.

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 and description clearly state this lists a user's submissions, with the description adding that it includes reviewer decisions. It is distinct from siblings like num_submit_business and num_submit_promo, which are for creating submissions, and num_search_places which searches places, so it differentiates well.

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 implies a read-only listing of submissions with reviewer decisions, which fits with the readOnlyHint. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, but sibling names make it apparent that this is the listing tool while others are for submission or searching. However, no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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