get_submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the concrete status values and the fields surfaced (link tier, paid checkout verified), and by exposing the underlying endpoint shape. It doesn't discuss rate limits for polling or error/auth behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and payoff, with the endpoint parenthetical as compact supporting context. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by listing the status enum and the two additional result fields. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; minor omissions are polling cadence and what happens for an unknown id.

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% and the single id parameter is already documented with its provenance ("submission_id returned by submit_tool"). The description adds nothing further about the id's format or constraints, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (poll/get status) plus the resource (a submission) and enumerates what it reports: status pending/approved/rejected, link tier, and paid-checkout verification. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like submit_tool or list_categories. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative sibling the way a 5 would, but the operation is 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?

"Poll a submission's status" implies the usage context of repeatedly checking an asynchronous submission after submit_tool, which is real guidance. However, it never states when to use this versus other lookups, no prerequisites, and no stopping condition for polling. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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