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

While annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent operation, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the exact error for an ungenerated feed, the return object shape, and the possible statuses ('submitted', 'not_submittable', 'failed'). It goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't elaborate on side effects or authorization requirements.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, precondition/error, return format, status meanings, parameter provenance, and a recommendation. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps technical details in compact inline code.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition still documents the return object, statuses, failure condition, and prerequisites. It is mostly complete for a 2-parameter tool, though it could say more about what project_id scopes and how to determine whether a channel accepts submissions before calling.

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%, so the description carries the parameter burden. It explains that feed_id comes from list_feeds / create_feed and marks project_id as OPTIONAL. This compensates for the empty schema descriptions, though project_id's actual role is left vague beyond being optional.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'Submit a generated feed to its sales channel' — and clearly distinguishes the tool's scope by noting it is only meaningful for API channels with a connection and that file feeds are not submitted. This makes it easy to tell apart from other feed-related sibling tools.

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?

It gives explicit preconditions: the feed must be generated first via get_feed_status, otherwise error 'feed_not_generated', and it recommends running verify_feed_attributes before submitting. It also explicitly excludes file feeds. However, it doesn't name a specific alternative tool for cases where submission is not appropriate, so it stops short of full guidance.

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