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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by disclosing access-control behavior: anonymous or unrelated callers only see submitted submissions, while drafts are restricted to the team, admins, and judges. This adds meaningful context about authorization and visibility beyond the annotations, and it accurately reflects the tool's read-only nature without any contradiction.

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 compact and immediately front-loads the action and return contents. The second sentence provides exactly the two additional pieces of information an agent needs—visibility rules and alternative tools—without any filler or repetition of the schema.

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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description is fully complete: it lists the output fields, explains access restrictions, and names alternatives for when the id is unknown. Even though there is no output schema, the explicit field list covers return-value expectations, and the annotation covers safety. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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?

The schema already documents submission_id with type, minimum, required flag, and a description ('Numeric id of the submission'). The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond saying 'by id' and referencing 'numeric id' in the usage note. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('one project submission by id'), and enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from list-style siblings by noting it requires a numeric id, so an agent can tell it apart from submission_list without opening the schema.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use submission_list or submission_get_mine when you do not already know the numeric id.' It also provides visibility/authorization context describing when callers can access submissions (submitted vs. draft), which directly guides an agent in whether this tool will return data in a given context.

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