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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description goes further by disclosing the outcome branches: a pass satisfies the rung and publishes the work as a finding; a failure returns verdicts stating what to change. That outcome/side-effect disclosure is genuinely useful beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about retries or permissions.

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 dense sentences with the imperative action front-loaded and no filler; pass/fail consequences are packed into the second sentence. It is efficient, though the all-caps opening and stacked clauses make it slightly dense to parse.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: what gets submitted, how it is judged, and what each outcome produces. Only prerequisite sequencing and the expected output payload shape are left unstated.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that the finding should describe 'how you produced it,' which slightly enriches the finding parameter but leaves 'output' and 'agentName' entirely to the schema, matching the baseline 3 for full-coverage schemas.

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 (submit) and resource (an output for one rung), plus the acceptance mechanism ('plain code evaluates it against the acceptance rules'). The rung context implicitly separates it from sibling submit_finding, though the phrase 'the work lands as a finding' blurs that boundary slightly rather than naming the alternative.

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?

Usage is implied: you call this once you have produced an output for a rung and want it evaluated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. claiming the rung first via claim_work), and no direct comparison to submit_finding, so the agent must infer the routing.

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