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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds that only drafts are accepted and that submission is 'for processing', implying a state transition, but it does not disclose reversibility, side effects, or what happens after submission.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and the key constraint. No redundant information or filler; every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the single parameter is inferable from context, the description is adequate for a straightforward submit action. It covers the essential prerequisite (drafts exist and are in Draft status) and is not missing critical information for correct invocation.

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 defines 'ids' as an array of up to 100 identifiers, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify the meaning. The phrase 'previously created SMI deep report drafts' implies ids are the draft IDs, but it is not explicitly stated, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the verb 'submits' and the resource 'previously created SMI deep report drafts', with an explicit status constraint ('Draft status only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like smi_create_deep_report (creation) and smi_list_deep_reports (listing).

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 is for drafts that were previously created, which guides when to use it (after creation, before processing). It does not explicitly contrast with other submit tools like smi_submit_exports, but the resource-specific naming and context make the intended usage clear.

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