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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds domain meaning about the return payload (custom states exist, is_closed marks completion, assignees are member user_ids), but says nothing about ordering, size or pagination of the result.

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?

One sentence on the payload plus one on usage, with the return content front-loaded. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so at a useful level (states with is_closed, assignees as user_id). Minor gaps remain around ordering and whether the list is exhaustive, but an agent can call this correctly as written.

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 single `site` parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including the list_sites cross-reference), so the schema does the work. The description never mentions the parameter at all, so no value is added beyond the structured field.

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 and two concrete resources: submission states (built-in plus custom, with is_closed semantics) and assignable people by user_id. That also separates it from list_members and list_submissions, which an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

"Use it before set_submission_status and assign_submission" gives an explicit prerequisite relationship to the two siblings that consume this output. An agent knows both when to reach for it and which tools depend on it.

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