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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, correctly signaling a safe read operation. The description adds useful return-content context (triage status, rewards) beyond the annotations, but it doesn't disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or other operational traits. This is adequate given the simple read-only nature.

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 a single compact sentence that states the action, scope, and key output fields without filler. Every phrase contributes value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only listing with one optional parameter, the description adequately captures the resource, scope, and output highlights. An explicit note on ordering or pagination would be a minor enhancement, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, which includes its own description and default. The tool description does not mention parameters, but that's acceptable because the schema carries the full semantic burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('findings you've submitted'), and qualifies the scope ('across all programs') with a clear output focus ('current triage status and any awarded reward'). It plainly describes a read-only listing, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_submission or list_my_claims.

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 implies when to use this tool: when the agent wants to see its own submitted findings across all programs, as opposed to a single submission. It does not provide explicit 'use X instead' guidance or exclusions, so usage context is adequate but not fully disambiguated from siblings such as list_my_claims or get_submission.

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