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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a practical prerequisite, 'Requires a token,' which is useful auth context beyond the annotations. It does not discuss pagination or response shape, but for a simple zero-parameter list tool that is not a major 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?

The description is two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the token requirement is stated as a clean, separate note.

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 simple zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description provides the action, the resource scope, the returned information ('review status'), and an auth prerequisite. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys what the agent should expect at a high level.

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 description does not need to explain parameter syntax or semantics. The schema coverage is effectively complete, and the description's focus on 'tools you submitted' gives the agent enough to understand the implicit scope of the call.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clearly scoped resource ('the tools you submitted'), and adds 'review status' as the information returned. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_tool, search_tools, and get_tool.

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 use case is clear: this tool is for retrieving the agent's own submissions and their review status. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings or state when not to use it, but the scope is specific enough that an agent should recognize when it applies.

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