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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds value beyond them by enumerating the possible `reason` categories and instructing the agent to relay `message` word for word — a real behavioral instruction, though it leaves the exact response shape unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question and organized by output field. The `reason` enumeration is dense with embedded parentheticals, slightly slowing parsing, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the `reason` categories and explains `message` and `archiveId`. An agent has enough to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, which itself explains that archiveId is the build a submit would name. The description's gloss ('the one a submit would freeze') largely restates the schema, so baseline 3 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 resource and question: whether the game can be submitted to moderation now and, if not, why. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_archive_status by explicitly delegating archive reason codes there, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 conveys the operative context (checking a pending/blocked submission, relaying the refusal verbatim) and points to get_archive_status for archive-level reasons. It stops short of an explicit 'when not to use this' clause, so it's clear context but no stated exclusions.

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