submit_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the state transition ('moves it to 'submitted' status') and the visibility effect ('visible to that domain's reviewers'), which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the action is reversible, whether it triggers notifications, or what the response looks like. For a state-changing tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action and state change are front-loaded, followed by the visibility effect and access requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the state change, the visibility effect, and the access prerequisite. It does not describe the return value, but with no output schema and a simple action, that is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. The description implies that report_id identifies the report to submit, but it does not explicitly state that report_id is the identifier of the draft/rejected report. The schema already provides the parameter name and type, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema shows. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Submit'), a specific resource ('a draft/rejected report'), and the resulting state change ('moves it to 'submitted' status'). It also names the target audience ('visible to that domain's reviewers'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_draft_report and update_draft_report. This is a clear, non-tautological definition.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a draft or rejected report is ready for review. It also provides a prerequisite ('Requires author-tier access to the report's target domain'), which helps an agent decide if it can invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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