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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds the important constraint that only Draft status items are accepted, which is beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like asynchronous processing or failure modes, so the added value is moderate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It efficiently conveys the action, target, and constraint without redundancy.

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 simple submission tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it submits and the status requirement. It does not mention success/failure behavior, but the presence of an output schema may cover that. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'ids' are the identifiers of the previously created SMI export drafts, but does not explicitly state that. For a single parameter, this is sufficient context, though it could be more explicit about the type and purpose of ids.

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', the resource 'SMI export drafts', and the condition 'Draft status only'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like smi_create_export (which creates) and smi_get_export (which retrieves) without ambiguity.

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 usage context by specifying 'previously created' and 'Draft status only', which tells the agent this is for drafts that exist and are not yet submitted. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list provides those and the condition is clear enough.

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