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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: 'This costs nothing on any plan and no status costs more than another' and encourages recording 'what actually happened.' However, it does not disclose whether calls are idempotent, whether records can be overwritten, what happens on error, or what the tool returns, which are material for a logging tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is about three sentences. It avoids much of the fluff, though the phrase 'the brief was what spent the tracked platform' is cryptic and slightly undermines conciseness. Overall, each sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the main call context, including queued submissions and uncertain landings, and gives cost-related reassurance. It does not explain return values or persistence behavior, but there is no output schema and the tool is a simple logging action. The essential information for choosing and calling it correctly is present.

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 71%, which establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds some mapping context by referencing 'the listing URL, when it was sent, when it goes live,' which aligns with `listingUrl`, `submittedAt`, and `launchAt`. It does not clarify `note` or `platformSlug`, but the schema already covers the other parameters in reasonable detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Log what happened to the dashboard' and names the key pieces of data (listing URL, when it was sent, when it goes live). It clearly stands apart from siblings like list_submissions and plan_submissions, which are about retrieval and planning rather than recording.

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 gives explicit when-to-call guidance: 'Call it as soon as a submission lands, including when it is only queued for review, and including when you are not sure it landed.' It also clarifies the intended use of the `attempted` status. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when to avoid using this tool, but the invocation conditions are clear.

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