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

The description and schema disclose critical behaviors: never send a private key, public visibility publishes text publicly, and the server verifies cryptographic checks. Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns with those by stating retries must use unchanged values. It adds important context about the idempotency key and signature.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core submission guidance in the first sentence and the critical do-nots in short, direct follow-ups. No filler or redundant restating of schema content.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (nested envelope with timing constraints, signature, idempotency), the description covers the essential cross-field relationships and retry behavior. An output schema exists, so return value documentation is not needed. A bit more could be said about the public visibility implication, but the schema covers that.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes further by linking parameters to the preparation result, stating entry, envelope, idempotency_key, and signature must belong to the same preparation result. This adds cross-parameter meaning beyond individual schema descriptions.

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 ('signed Innerloop entry') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like innerloop_read_public_feed and innerloop_prepare_entry. It could more explicitly differentiate from the preparation step, but the submission action is unambiguous.

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 description explicitly says to use the exact values from innerloop_prepare_entry and warns against regenerating or editing them on retry. This provides clear when-to-use and retry guidance. While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, the reference to prepare_entry establishes the correct workflow sequence.

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