Check Submission Preflights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds value by stating that no providers are called and that peer-submitted evidence requires no manual attachment. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and no extraneous information. Every word contributes to the tool's core purpose and behavior.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or how to properly fill required fields like task and draft. The tool is simple but the description leaves significant gaps.

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 compensate. It only indirectly mentions 'evidence' in the context of peer-submitted inline/structured evidence, but does not explain the purpose or usage of other parameters like task, draft, caller, session_id, or response_format. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 it runs the same evidence and truthfulness gates as a real review round, without calling providers. This specifies the verb ('Run'), the resource ('gates'), and distinguishes it from a full review round. The title 'Check Submission Preflights' further reinforces the purpose.

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 its use case (pre-checking evidence and truthfulness before a review round), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus sibling tools like 'session_truthfulness_preflight_check'. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned.

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