Submit CAI asset analysis

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the operation is asynchronous, it returns an admission document, and unresolved claims in a successful result are analytical states rather than failures. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler. Action comes first, polling guidance second, and result interpretation last. Every sentence contributes to correct use.

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?

It covers the async workflow and result interpretation, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it omits parameter semantics and any detail about the admission document structure, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it never mentions address, block, or chain. It adds no meaning beyond the input schema's pattern and const constraints, leaving the agent to infer what each parameter represents.

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 action ('Submit') and resource ('analysis to the canonical CAI API'), and immediately distinguishes it from the polling sibling by directing the agent to use get_analysis_job. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly frames the operation as asynchronous and tells the agent to use get_analysis_job to poll afterward. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance for list_assets or get_methodology, but the usage context is clear.

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