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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the full status enum and the 7-day expiry rule ('expired after 7 days without confirmation'), which is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the first gives purpose plus status values plus expiry, the second gives required inputs. Front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, states, expiry, and required inputs. Minor gaps remain: error behavior for unknown submission_id and whether the email must match the original submitter are not stated.

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%, so the description must carry the load; it names both required parameters and clarifies that author_email is the submitting author's address, implying an identity/ownership check. It does not explain format constraints (e.g., the sub_ prefix pattern) or what happens on mismatch, so it only partially compensates.

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+resource ('Status of a book submitted with submit_book') and enumerates the exact possible return states, so an agent knows precisely what this returns. Naming submit_book distinguishes it from the similarly-named sibling order_status, which covers a different domain.

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 phrase 'submitted with submit_book' implies the prerequisite (a prior submission), which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool named (e.g., order_status for purchases). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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