reading_list_submissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description adds limited value beyond confirming read-only nature. It doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or response structure, but is consistent with 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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it omits parameter information that could be included without bloating.

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?

Given four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not hint at parameter purposes or filter semantics, leaving the agent underinformed for effective invocation.

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?

Four optional parameters (limit, bookId, chunkId, sessionId) have 0% schema description coverage and are not explained in the description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the gap.

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?

Description clearly states 'List human note submission batches that have been shared with Claude', using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like reading_read_submission (individual submission) and reading_submit_user_notes (creation).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reading_list_annotations or reading_list_books. The agent is left to infer context without explicit when/when-not or sibling differentiation.

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