list_submissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing return format (list of dictionaries with specific fields), error conditions (RuntimeError on gh command failure), and the fact this fetches data rather than modifies it. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but provides solid behavioral context.

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?

Perfectly structured with purpose statement, parameter explanations, return format, and error conditions in clear sections. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, list output), no annotations, but with output schema present, the description provides complete context: purpose, parameter semantics, return format, and error handling. The output schema handles return structure details, so the description focuses on semantic context appropriately.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: track with specific enum values and 'all' default behavior, and state with enum values and default. It adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the verb 'Fetch' and resource 'list of Agents League submissions', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like get_submission_detail (single submission) and generate_ranking_report (analytical output).

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 usage context through parameter explanations (track filtering, state filtering), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_submission_detail. It provides clear filtering capabilities but lacks explicit sibling comparison guidance.

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