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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds the useful behavioral constraint that only submissions made through this same connection are visible, but it does not describe status values, error behavior, or other operational 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core information, though the fragment style is terse enough to leave important usage context implicit.

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?

The tool is simple, has one fully documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it is quite thin: it does not explicitly state what status information is returned or how to interpret results, leaving an agent to rely on structured fields.

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 100%, so the submission_id parameter is already documented. The description adds marginal context by implying the ID must come from a submission made through this same connection, consistent with the schema note that it is returned when submitting.

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 identifies the resource and returned information: the moderation status of a submission. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_question or review_claim, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not name any sibling 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?

It implies the tool is for checking a submission's moderation status, and adds the important constraint that the submission must have been made through this same connection. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives.

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