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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns only a limited set of states, never returns submitted text or contributor details, and has no side effects. This is valuable behavioral context the annotations alone do not convey.

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 dense sentences cover purpose, return scope, privacy guarantees, side effects, and routing alternatives. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the most important usage constraint is front-loaded.

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?

With a single documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers the operational behavior, privacy constraints, and successor tool guidance. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents submissionId with details about it being a private UUID, returned once by submit_fix, and not usable to retrieve submitted text. The description's reference to 'private submissionId returned by submit_fix' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline for high schema coverage 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the exact resource (a private submissionId from submit_fix). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on review states rather than catalog retrieval, and even names get_fix as the downstream tool.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (after submit_fix returns a submissionId), when to switch to get_fix (once cataloged), and what not to do (resubmit merely because review is pending). This gives an agent clear routing guidance.

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