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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned fields (project, status, dates, approver), but does not mention pagination via limit/cursor or filtering behavior.

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?

It is short with no filler, but it is a single sentence fragment and is under-specified rather than effectively front-loaded. The terseness sacrifices clarity about the tool's action.

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 paginated list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify listing behavior, pagination and filtering. It only enumerates some fields, leaving key call context 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?

Schema coverage is 75% – cursor, search and project_id are described in schema; limit is not. The description lists output fields rather than explaining parameters, so it adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, matching 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?

The fragment identifies the resource (submittals) and lists returned attributes, but never states the verb 'list' or scope, and does not distinguish this from sibling get_submittal. The name/title supply the action, so it is not misleading, but the description itself is vague.

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?

Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_submittal, and no explanation of filtering by project/search. It leaves usage entirely to inference.

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