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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds substantive context beyond annotations—the two review tiers, their costs, and turnaround times—though it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or other operational constraints. That is a strong supplement but not exhaustive.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by pricing/timing, a quick safety signal, and a usage instruction. Every sentence contributes useful information; nothing extraneous.

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 zero-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers what the tool contains, why it matters, and when to call it. No essential context 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than fabricating input 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 uses a specific verb (list) and resource (submission requirements), enumerates the exact content returned (required/optional fields, rules, categories, review tiers), and explicitly contrasts it with submit_pwa. An agent can readily distinguish it from sibling tools 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?

It gives direct when-to-use guidance: call it before submit_pwa rather than guessing a category. The alternative (submit_pwa) and the sequencing are explicit, leaving nothing to inference.

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