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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: ShareGrokBots does not test, score, or review listed bots, and prompt text is never returned. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set accurate expectations.

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 short sentences: the first states the core function, and the next two add important caveats without padding. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information 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 no output schema and no parameters, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (status, votes, adds) and key behavioral nuances. It could be more complete by mentioning pagination or sorting, but these are not essential for a simple member-specific listing.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the parameter space. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools 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 and resource: 'List the member's submissions,' and further specifies the fields returned (status, votes, adds). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_bot or search_bots, which target individual bots or general listings.

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 implies usage for viewing the current member's own submissions, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like search_bots or most_voted. The context is inferable from 'member's submissions' but not fully explicit.

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