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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions auth requirements (API key) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, or whether there are side effects. The status list gives minimal output context but is insufficient.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Check status') and includes the relevant API key requirement. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Despite the simple schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a submission, what the return structure is, possible errors, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_bounty_submissions. With no annotations or output schema, more context is needed.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning for the 'submission_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what a submission ID is, how to obtain it, or its expected format. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 'Check status' and the resource 'submission' with an explicit list of possible statuses (pending, accepted, rejected, paid). It is unambiguous about the tool's function, but it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like get_bounty_submissions, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than usage context. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or conditions for use.

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