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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain behavior: submission is evidence for requester review only, and the required payload differs by task type. It stops short of describing post-submission state transitions or error behavior.

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: the action, the payload rule, then the scope exclusion. The most important disambiguation is front-loaded and there is 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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the essential parts: what the call produces (evidence awaiting review, not acceptance), and the type-dependent payload contract. Remaining gaps (preconditions, failure modes) are minor for a submission tool whose annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent behavior.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage and an undocumented nested result_data object, the description carries the load by mapping result_data to typed tasks (requires outcome, captured_at) and result to CUSTOM tasks. Nested fields such as answer, unit, price, and queue_count remain unexplained in both places.

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 ('actual evidence for requester review'), and the closing negation 'Does not accept the work or confirm payment' explicitly separates it from accept_task and mark_payment_paid. An agent can distinguish this from claim_task/prepare_task/accept_task without opening any schema.

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 conditional selection guidance: typed physical tasks must use result_data with outcome and captured_at, while CUSTOM tasks may use the legacy result text. It also states what the tool is not for (accepting work, confirming payment), but does not address adjacent flows like request_revision or whether a task must be claimed first.

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