Submit Deliverable

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context such as whether a resubmission overwrites, duplicates, or is rejected after review. It adds none of this, and nothing about validation failures or downstream review.

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 front-loaded sentence with a role tag and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity for a six-required-parameter submission tool borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

For a tool with six required parameters, no output schema, and terminal-sounding semantics, the description never says whether submission is final, what happens after (review/acceptance), or how the citation and gap counts are validated. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the operational picture remains incomplete.

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 100% across six required parameters, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'tied to evidence' loosely signals that evidence_packet_ids must reference real packets, but citation_count and gaps_flagged — self-reported quality metrics — get no interpretive guidance in either field.

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?

Names a specific verb (Submit) and resource (final output/deliverable) and tags the acting roles as [ANALYST/BUILDER], which helps an agent self-select. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as submit_evidence or complete_task, which also move work product along.

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 [ANALYST/BUILDER] tag implies who may call it, but there is no statement of when to submit versus using complete_task, submit_evidence, or handoff_evidence, and no prerequisites or ordering constraints (e.g., that a task brief/spec must exist first).

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