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

Annotations provide no meaningful behavioral signal (all false), so the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently states that submissions are not published, are reviewed weekly on Monday, and accepted items are credited in the record's weekly update. This goes beyond the annotation fields and gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and post-submission handling.

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 four sentences long, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences add useful process context and a schema link, with no significant filler. Minor items like 'Free;' are arguably unnecessary, but the overall structure is efficient and well-ordered.

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 tool with no output schema and a nested agent object, the description explains the entire post-submission lifecycle: not published, reviewed weekly, credited if accepted. It also links to a full schema for parameter details. It does not describe the immediate response or error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple submission tool.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters in detail, including accepted URL formats for record and the meaning of public_url. The description only loosely maps to parameters ('used a record and for what... where it can be seen') and adds little beyond the schema. The agent object's purpose is also left to its nested schema descriptions, making the baseline 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record that you used a New Runtime record and for what (optionally where it can be seen).' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling submission tools like submit_correction and submit_source by focusing on usage receipts. The added context about helping the weekly desk further clarifies the tool's intent.

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 the tool should be used when an agent has used a New Runtime record and wants it credited, and it explains the review process. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is present but left to inference.

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