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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description goes further by disclosing the auth scope (run:write), that submissions land in a moderation queue and may not be public, and that raw output is stored but never projected publicly. This is substantive data-handling context beyond what the structured fields convey, though the response shape is only partly described.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping, then prerequisites and behavior. Each sentence carries information, though the "a aicoolies" duplication is a minor blemish.

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 a complex 11-parameter write tool with a nested environment object and no output schema, the description covers side effects and result fields (queued, moderationStatus) reasonably but omits any explanation of the required submission payload. An agent knows the consequences of submitting but not how to fill most required fields.

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 description coverage is only 9% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the burden and does not meet it. It only incidentally touches the 'raw' parameter ("Raw output is stored but never projected publicly") and says nothing about environment, started_at, duration_s, outcome, result_summary, or the slug/version fields.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: submit a Community Run for a published task and catalog tool. That distinguishes it cleanly from sibling reads like get_tool and search_tools. It stops short of naming a sibling or a boundary condition, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

"Requires run:write" gives a concrete prerequisite, and the note on what determines verification is useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when a run should not be submitted, and no routing to alternatives among the sibling tools.

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