Get a submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema: it frames this as a polling operation for pending submissions and enumerates the fields the caller can expect, which helps an agent understand the tool's role.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and output fields, and the second sentence provides the concrete polling use case. Every word 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 read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. It tells an agent what the tool does, what it returns, and when to invoke it—nothing essential is missing.

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%: the single parameter submission_id is already documented as 'Submission id to look up.' The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond 'by id,' so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one submission by id'), and the key fields returned (verdict, counts, status, language, timing). It distinguishes this from list-style siblings like list_my_submissions and get_problem_submissions by focusing on single-submission lookup.

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 gives explicit context: 'Use it to poll a submission that repovive_submit_solution left pending.' This clearly indicates when to call the tool. It does not list when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, so it misses the full 5.

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