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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses the auth mechanism ('Authorization: Bearer <key>') and what content comes back (status plus the Architect's notes/questions). No return format or pagination detail, but with no output schema that is a minor 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, no filler, with the identity of the resource front-loaded and the auth requirement second. Nothing redundant with the title or schema.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and returned content. Only the explicit routing against sibling tools (notably parse_submit_evidence) is missing.

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%, so the agent_key parameter is already documented, but the description goes further by giving the actual header syntax and clarifying that the key is normally sent as a header — context the schema alone does not provide.

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 verb-like resource clearly: the status of your own submissions plus the Architect's notes/questions on them. Scope ('your own') separates it from the broader parse_search/parse_read_record siblings, though it never names an alternative and never says explicitly that it retrieves/lists rather than mutates.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'your own submissions' — an agent can infer this is the check-my-status tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to parse_submit_evidence for the submission action itself.

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