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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it requires auth, it is meant to be polled, it exposes the response path validation.state and its note field, and it gives expected latency. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but for a single-record status read that is minor.

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, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the operational polling guidance. Every clause carries information an agent needs (auth, polling cadence, the waiting state and its note) with no filler.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming validation verdicts, rejection reason, and the validation.state/note fields. Combined with the auth and polling guidance, an agent has enough to call and interpret it; only the id semantics remain slightly underspecified.

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 0% for the single id parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does by implying the id identifies your own submission (scoping by ownership), but it never states the format (UUID) or confirms that id is the submission identifier rather than a dataset or record id.

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?

Specific verb+resource: returns the status of your own submission along with validation verdicts and rejection reason. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling contribution_status, which an agent might confuse it with when deciding which status tool to call.

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 concrete usage behavior: poll until published or rejected, typically under a minute, and explains the exceptional 'waiting' case when validation is blocked on model budget or provider. That is strong when-to-use context, but it does not explicitly compare to or exclude the sibling contribution_status.

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