list_submissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses result caching (15 min), the refresh override, the cross-conference default scope, and the compact shape of the payload (no abstract/files). It does not cover permissions/auth requirements, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then handles each parameter and the caveat in tight sentences with no filler. The line-wrapping and parenthetical style are slightly dense, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description correctly stops at describing result shape rather than schema. For a two-param, no-annotation read tool it covers scope, caching, and the alternative sibling, leaving only auth/permission context unaddressed.

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 must compensate and largely does: conference is documented as a UrlSegmentName with a concrete example and a default-scope rule, and refresh is explained as a cache-bypass flag. Format details are adequate; the only omission is whether conference accepts an ID versus a name beyond the single example.

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 and resource ('List the user's submissions with status') and immediately scopes what the result contains versus what it omits. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_submission by pointing there for abstracts/files, so an agent can differentiate without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions: omitting conference pulls submissions across ALL conferences, and get_submission should be used when abstract/file detail is needed. It also explains refresh=true as the escape hatch from the cache. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance (e.g. vs get_delta), so it falls just short of the top band.

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