submission_guide

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content dimensions of the response (evaluation criteria, application URL, program list), but it does not add behavioral context such as caching, permissions, or rate limits. With full annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and a compact list of returned contents. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter informational tool and contains no filler.

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?

Because the tool takes no parameters and has an output schema, the description only needs to establish purpose and scope. It does that and names the specific response contents, so an agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the baseline rule parameter semantics starts at 4. There is no parameter behavior to explain, and the description correctly does not pretend otherwise.

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 and resource: return submission guidance for Create Apps Championship. It also lists what the guidance includes, so the agent can understand the tool's purpose without opening the schema. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as createapps_championship or dcde_programs.

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?

Usage is implied by the specific purpose: this is the tool for submission guidance. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as createapps_championship for related program information.

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