check_submission_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It adds value by noting 'reviewer feedback' is included (not just status), but omits what status values exist, whether this is read-only (implied but not confirmed), or error behaviors for invalid scroll_ids.

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?

Single sentence front-loaded with the action. Efficient at 11 words, though brevity contributes to under-documentation given lack of annotations and schema descriptions.

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?

Acceptable for a simple single-parameter query tool where output schema exists to document returns. However, incomplete regarding parameter semantics and behavioral edge cases given zero annotation coverage.

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 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'submitted scroll' implying the scroll_id parameter's purpose but provides no format guidance, constraints, or source information for the ID, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 specific verb 'Check' with clear resources ('status of a submitted scroll' and 'reviewer feedback'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling lookup_scroll_tool (content retrieval) and review_scroll_tool (action), though explicit differentiation is absent.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like lookup_scroll_tool or get_replication_report. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a submitted scroll_id versus draft) or workflow timing.

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