submit_extracted_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: the engine validates exact matching and content hashes, and need-bearing types require a type-aligned host-normalized field because raw quotes/headlines/switching statements are never promoted to canonical needs. It does not cover failure modes, idempotency, or retry behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three dense sentences that are front-loaded with the action and payload, then validation and promotion rules. Every sentence carries substantive information with little waste, though the second half is syntactically heavy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the promotion/validation rules are a good start. But for a tool requiring three undocumented params with a free-form nested signals payload, the description leaves the agent without enough to construct a valid submission.

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% for all three required params, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only for the signals payload (need-bearing type fields), leaving run_id and document_id entirely unexplained and the general shape of the signals array unclear.

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?

States a specific verb (Submit) and resource (schema-validated market signals and verbatim evidence quotes) scoped to a persisted document. It is distinguishable from siblings like submit_counterevidence or submit_relevance_extraction_batch by the signal/quote payload, though it never explicitly names those 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 'extracted by the host agent for a persisted document' implies the calling context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when to prefer this over submit_counterevidence or the various submit_*_batch siblings. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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