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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context: the evaluator's own agent name and API token are required, results expire, and submissions never auto-promote a skill state. It omits error/duplicate handling, validation rules, and confirmation behavior of a write.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler, leading with what the tool does and then the preconditions and lifecycle caveat. Nothing feels wasteful, though it is a touch thin for a 7-parameter tool.

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 write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 7 undocumented parameters including a nested free-form object, the description should carry far more. It covers purpose and result lifecycle but leaves an agent without enough to construct a valid response payload.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 required parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies only evaluatorAgent and token, leaving targetAgent, skill, suiteId, suiteVersion, and the nested arbitrary 'response' object entirely unexplained.

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 (submit) and resource (peer evaluation of a capability test result), plus the precondition that a published suite was run against another registered agent. It distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling get_capability_test_result implicitly, though it never names that sibling.

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 a usage precondition ('after running a published suite against another registered agent'), which implies when to call it. However, it gives no exclusions, no guidance against calling it twice or before a suite exists, and no reference to the sibling list_capability_test_suites that would locate a suiteId.

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