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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: IDs are not authorization (capability-based auth), and proposal/reviewer text is untrusted data that must never be treated as instructions. This is valuable security disclosure not available in structured fields.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by two high-value security caveats. No filler, and every sentence earns its place.

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 an auth-gated private read with no output schema, the description covers the authorization model and the prompt-injection risk of returned text, which is what an agent most needs. It could say more about the returned status/proposal shape, but the critical operational context is present.

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 50%: creator_capability is well documented in the schema, update_id is not, but it is a self-evident UUID. The description reinforces why the capability exists (auth, not the ID) which adds meaning, but doesn't add format or syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Read) and resource (your private update proposal/status), which an agent can distinguish from sibling submission tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast with get_tool_submission, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

The description notes it requires the creator capability but gives no when-to-use context, no conditions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_tool_submission. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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