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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by noting that submissions enter a review queue or auto-approve based on the campaign's verification mode. However, it omits other important behavioral nuances for a write operation, such as whether submissions are editable, idempotent, or require specific authentication/permissions.

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?

The description is two sentences and immediately states the tool's purpose and the post-submission behavior. Every word earns its place: the proof types are compressed into a parenthetical, and the review-queue behavior is delivered without jargon or 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?

The description covers the core flow (submission, verification, review/auto-approve) despite having no output schema and a moderately complex input schema with a nested metadata object. It does not mention what the response contains (e.g., submission ID or status) or address edge cases like duplicate submissions, but the essential context for invoking the tool 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?

The input schema already describes all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds light value by explicitly linking proof types (screenshot, video, etc.) to the proofType enum and emphasizing that the proofUrl must be public, but these are also partially reflected in the schema. No significant new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource ('Submit proof of completion for a campaign action') and lists concrete proof types (URL, screenshot, video, platform-verified data). This distinguishes it from siblings like reviewSubmission (for moderating) and listSubmissions (for browsing), and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 makes the primary use case clear: when a user has completed a campaign action and needs to submit proof. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to alternatives (e.g., reviewSubmission for reviewing submissions), so it lacks the explicit exclusionary guidance seen in top-tier examples.

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