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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains the status returned (done vs submitted) depending on workspace configuration, the blocking preconditions, the per-call confirmation toggle, the need to confirm with the user because it reaches other people, and the required Cotlet API key scope. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 core action and the outcome-condition are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct operational detail. It is slightly dense but no sentence is filler, so it stays efficient without being terse to the point of ambiguity.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the meaningful return variance (status done vs submitted) and all preconditions and auth requirements. For a one-param mutation with human-in-the-loop semantics, nothing an agent needs before invoking 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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents report_id and points to list_reports. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, so 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 and resource ('Submits a draft report') and immediately ties it to the workspace approval workflow. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_report and approve_report, which handle different lifecycle stages.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: reports where every expense is on hold or every transaction is a pending Expensify Card transaction cannot be submitted, and the approval-workflow/no-workflow outcome is described. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead (e.g., approve_report) when submission isn't applicable.

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