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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: it discloses the returned fields (queue position, launch date, listing URL) and asserts a transparency guarantee about queue state. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and failure behavior, but for a read-only status check the disclosure is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with verb and resource in the first clause, followed by the enumerated return values. The second sentence is partly promotional ('never hides queue state') but does convey a behavioral guarantee, so waste is limited.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating what the call returns (state, queue position, launch date, listing URL), which is what an agent most needs here. Auth and error-handling details are absent but minor for a simple read lookup.

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 100%, so the definitions of both url and submission_id are already documented. The description only adds that either identifier can be used to locate a submission, which is marginal beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

Clear specific verb (check status) and resource (Toolfound submission), and it enumerates the returnable states (pending verification, queued, launched), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many nearby status-oriented siblings such as toolfound_verify_submission, toolfound_check_verification, or toolfound_get_launch_calendar.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the phrase 'by submission id or product URL,' but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the large set of sibling status/verification tools. The agent must infer that this is the passive status lookup versus the verification actions.

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