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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the auth requirement, the full state machine (submitted → validating → merged or rejected), what the verdict contains, and the blocking long-poll semantics of wait.

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 dense sentence with the state machine front-loaded and every clause carrying information: states, return fields, failure shape, and the polling option. 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 usefully characterizes the return values (mergedVersion, acceptedCount, verdict check/reason) and the auth requirement. What it leaves unexplained is the meaning of id/slug and how this differs from check_submission.

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%, and while the description well explains wait (seconds, up to 20, long-poll), it never explains what id or slug identify. Two of three parameters remain semantically opaque, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 resource ('Status of your own contribution') and scopes it to the caller's own submission. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling check_submission, which an agent may conflate, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a clear prerequisite ('requires auth') and practical usage context: pass wait to long-poll until the contribution settles, up to 20 seconds. It offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. vs check_submission), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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