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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing the possible returned states and that a verification verdict with reasons accompanies them — useful, though it says nothing about polling cadence or how long 'review' states persist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the outcome states and the additional verdict payload without a wasted word. Nothing is buried or repeated.

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, the description must convey what comes back, and it largely does: status values plus verification verdict and reasons. It is slightly thin on whether the verdict is always present and on the 'review' lifecycle, but it is adequate for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully ('Submission id returned by submit_listing'). The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (a submission) and enumerates the outcome space (pending, review, live, rejected) plus the verification verdict/reasons. The purpose is unambiguous, though it never names a sibling to differentiate itself from the other listing/submission tools.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is called after submit_listing to poll the outcome, and the schema note 'id returned by submit_listing' reinforces that. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-tool routing.

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