search_submissions

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

The description discloses a non-obvious behavior: date filters only apply to already-fetched pages flagged by a response field. However, with no annotations, it doesn't explain pagination behavior, return shape, or side effects/read-only semantics, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose, then lists parameter semantics in a scannable way. It packs a lot of value into a short space with no filler, though the formatting mixes inline and list-style hints slightly.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return shape, pagination behavior, and exclusions such as limit, phrase, journal, and submitted_to. The date-filter caveat is valuable, but major functional gaps remain.

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 provides only names/types, so the description adds real meaning by enumerating allowed values for status, stage, sort_by, and date format. But several parameters (phrase, journal, submitted_to, limit) are left unexplained, so the coverage is only partial.

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 opens with a clear action and resource: 'Find submissions (articles) in a journal.' The parameter list reinforces the purpose by enumerating concrete filters. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the core purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getting a single submission or its reviews. The only cross-tool hint is a reference to list_sections for valid section IDs, which is helpful but not enough to direct an agent to the right tool.

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