submit_request_v1_requests_post

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: required auth, input constraints, URL validation and metadata scrape, no auto-discovery, and the hint mechanism. No contradictions; it covers key behaviors well.

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 concise for the amount of detail, well-structured with short paragraphs. It starts with the endpoint and auth, then explains intake mode and specific behaviors without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all major aspects: required inputs, optional fields, side effects (metadata scrape, hint search). It could mention response/error codes, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description adds value by detailing the behavior for URL fields (validation, metadata scrape), the required length of user_description, and the hint search. This goes beyond schema definitions.

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 submits a new dataset request to the review queue, with a specific endpoint and auth method. It also distinguishes from siblings (e.g., approve, reject, fulfill) by focusing on submission and manual fulfillment.

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 implicitly guides usage by explaining the required user_description, optional URL fields, and the hint search for description-only submissions. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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