evaluate_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful downstream behavior—validation of evidence pointers, gap classification, and coverage-based verdict—but omits what gets written, whether resubmission is allowed, error behavior, and return shape.

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 two dense sentences with the purpose and step front-loaded, and little wasted wording. It is concise overall, though the second sentence packs multiple validation behaviors without separating parameter-specific guidance.

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?

The tool has a complex nested input schema, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description gives a useful conceptual overview but is far from complete enough to guide an agent through the nested submission structure or expected result.

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% and the schema includes several nested fields with enums and defaults. The description clarifies the high-level extraction/mapping concepts and the meaning of invalid evidence pointers, but leaves job_id, summary, deadline, requirement kinds, importance, basis, index, and evidence_kind largely unexplained.

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 (submit) and names the resources (extraction and mapping) plus its role as step 2 of evaluation. This distinguishes it from unrelated siblings, though it does not explicitly name the step-1 tool or other evaluation alternatives.

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 phrase 'Agent mode, step 2 of evaluation' implies usage context and ordering, but the description does not state when *not* to use this tool or name alternatives like evaluate_prompt. The implied workflow is helpful but not fully explicit.

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