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

Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: an authentication requirement ('current verified builder token'), the scoping guarantee (only this account's records), explicit negative guarantees (never another builder's submission, operator notes, or contact email), and empty-result semantics ('Empty means no owned records').

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the auth prerequisite, and every sentence carries distinct information (auth, scope, empty-state, exclusions). Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still previews the payload (statuses, published tool URL, image previews) and covers auth and scoping. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify, and none is needed.

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 ('Return ... this builder account's private submission statuses') and is anchored to the caller's own identity via 'my'. It does not name any sibling tool to differentiate against, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the way to check its own submission statuses, but the description never says when to use it versus siblings like get_submission_instructions or submit_application. The token prerequisite is stated, which gives some context, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is present.

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