check_submission_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes the authentication prerequisite and reveals the domain of possible return values. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, and the status list gives the agent a clear expectation of the result without requiring an output schema.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the target audience, states the action, lists possible outcomes, and includes the auth requirement. There is no redundant or wasted wording.

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 simple single-parameter status-check tool, the description covers purpose, audience, auth, and expected status values. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could benefit from a note on where to obtain submission_id or how to route between this and get_bounty_submissions.

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 zero description coverage for the parameter, and the description does not explicitly explain where submission_id comes from or what format it takes. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory and the description's reference to 'a submission' makes it clear that submission_id identifies the target submission, providing minimal but adequate guidance.

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 a specific action ('check status') and resource ('a submission'), and enumerates the possible statuses: pending, accepted, rejected, paid. This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like get_bounty_submissions, which retrieve multiple submissions rather than checking one submission's status.

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 gives some context by targeting 'solver agents' and mentions the auth requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_bounty_submissions or other submission-related siblings. The usage is implied rather than clearly scoped with alternatives or exclusions.

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