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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no verdict is returned and that the evidence must be validated, but it omits side effects, permissions, idempotency, and what 'fresh assembly' actually does.

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 filler; the return caveat is parenthetically placed to avoid disrupting the main action. It is appropriately sized.

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 tool with three required parameters (including a nested evidence object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It handles output expectations partially via 'no verdict returned' but leaves parameter meaning and invocation context insufficiently documented.

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 is 0%, so the description must explain the three required parameters, but only 'evidence' is indirectly addressed as a 'validated evidence doc.' The roles of 'site' and 'task' are left completely opaque.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('validated evidence doc') and states the downstream action ('fresh assembly') plus a return caveat. It does not differentiate from sibling tools such as collateral_report or get_receipt, but the evidence-assembly focus is clear enough on its own.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named. 'Validated evidence doc' implies a precondition, but the description never tells the agent when this submission is appropriate versus other sibling tools.

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