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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It transparently explains that submissions are not published, reviewed weekly, accepted items credited, and it returns a submission id and status URL. This goes beyond what annotations provide, disclosing the review workflow and non-immediate outcome.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second covers constraints and process, third states return value and schema link. No fluff, front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place.

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 submission tool with a nested agent object and no output schema, the description adequately covers the workflow (propose, review, credit) and return type (submission id, status URL). It does not detail error handling or edge cases, but those are largely covered by the schema, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 75%, with all parameters already having descriptive text. The tool description adds no extra meaning for url, reason, agent, or related_record; it merely references a schema URL. It does not compensate for the coverage gap or clarify parameter usage beyond the schema, so a 2 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Propose') and resource ('a source ... for a New Runtime record or topic'), and specifies the source types (primary page, paper, repo, docs). It is distinct from siblings like submit_correction and submit_usage_receipt, though it does not explicitly name them, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 provides context (free, weekly review, not published) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_correction or submit_usage_receipt. There is no 'use this when' or 'instead of' statement, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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