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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added value is the state machine and which payload accompanies each state (listingUrl/reportUrl once scored, reason on rejection), which tells the agent what a partial result means. It stops short of describing polling expectations or timing, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The positive usage and the return states come first, with the disambiguation clause last where it is most useful.

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 an output schema present the description need not restate return shapes, and the rich annotations cover safety. What an agent still needs — input provenance, state vocabulary, and sibling routing — is all 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is well documented, so the schema already carries the load. The description repeats the same provenance note ('an id from submit_program') and adds no format or validation detail beyond it; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource (read where a submitted program is) and enumerates the exact state set it returns: queued, verifying, listed, rejected. It also names the sibling it must not be confused with, so an agent can distinguish it from get_program without opening a 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 an explicit precondition (the id must come from submit_program) and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative: do not look up listed programs, call get_program instead. Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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