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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does so by noting the query is scoped to the caller's submitted items and only exposes public moderation fields, preventing unrealistic expectations about internal details.

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?

A single sentence delivers the purpose first, then the required id format, then the output scope. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter read-only query with full schema coverage, the description provides everything an agent needs: what to pass, what kind of result to expect, and that only public moderation fields are returned. The examples of statuses add useful context despite the lack of an output schema.

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?

The schema already fully documents submission_id, including its format and origin ('returned by a submit tool'). The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 purpose: retrieving the moderation status of user-submitted sources, corrections, or usage receipts by as_ submission id. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_record or search_archive by emphasizing the moderation-specific query and the 'you submitted' scope.

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 gives clear triggering context: after a submit tool returns an as_ id, call this to check the moderation outcome. It does not explicitly name alternatives or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls just short of a 5.

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