review_submission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key state-changing effects: approve:true captures one unit and consumes a slot; approve:false reopens the slot, preventing spot-blocking. It does not mention idempotency or error handling, but covers the critical consequences.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and packs in workflow and behavioral detail. No wasted words, though a bit long; the structure could be slightly improved with line breaks but remains effective.

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 absence of an output schema, it provides very useful workflow context (how to handle pending submissions, when to close). It doesn't explain return values or failure scenarios, which would round it out, but it is largely complete for a settlement action.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces approve semantics and submission_id source, but adds no new parameter details beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states this is 'THE settle tool' for approving/rejecting a submission, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it is the payment mechanism and referencing get_task/close_task for workflow.

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?

Explicitly says poster-only, describes when to use (poll get_task, review each submission) and when to use alternatives (call close_task when budget consumed). It also states 'there is no direct hire' to prevent misuse.

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