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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It strongly implies a read-only status lookup through 'Where every submission for a project stands' and 'what came back, and what is still waiting', and says the tool answers from stored data rather than memory. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or discuss data freshness/authorization, but the behavior is clearly non-mutating.

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?

Three sentences, every one earning its place: functionality, user-query mapping/guidance, and a prerequisite. No repetition of the schema or tool name, and the tone is engaging without bloat.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what data the user wants, which queries map to it, and what to do before calling it. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage for the single parameter is 100% (projectId), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent to call list_projects first when no project is named, which indirectly clarifies when projectId is needed or can be omitted. It also reinforces the project context through example queries.

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 defines the tool as a status dashboard for project submissions, listing exactly what information it provides (what went out, when, what came back, what is waiting). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly positioning it as the answer to 'check my submissions' and similar queries, rather than record_submission or plan_submissions.

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 gives explicit user language triggers ('check my submissions', 'what did I submit') and a concrete precondition: 'Start with list_projects if they have not named a project.' This tells the agent exactly when to call this tool and what to do first.

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