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

Annotations already mark this as a destructive, non-read-only operation. The description adds useful context about the login prerequisite and token cost, but it does not explain finality, reversibility, or submission consequences beyond what the annotations imply.

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?

Three short sentences are front-loaded with the prerequisite, then the action, then the token cost. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 complex destructive tool with 7 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential auth prerequisite and cost. It leaves finality and confirmation-gate expectations to the schema and annotations, which is mostly sufficient but slightly thin for a high-stakes tax 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 100%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden and baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds only the same-account_link_id session constraint and does not clarify confirmSubmit, sbmsAgreement, expected_state_version, or idempotency semantics.

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 (Submit) and resource (regular-withholding draft), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling init/save/preview/review tools. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: a prior hometax__session__login call with the same account_link_id. It does not name when to use this versus save/preview/review alternatives, so it falls short of explicit alternative routing.

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