list_brand_protection_recent_submissions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read operation, but 'recent' is undefined — no time window, item count, pagination, ordering, or result shape is disclosed. An agent cannot predict what set of items it will receive or when the tool is appropritate.

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 five words, front-loaded with the verb, and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place, but it is under-sized relative to the informational job — it essentially renders the tool name with underscores replaced by spaces, leaving little structural substance beyond brevity.

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?

The tool is structurally simple (1 param, no output schema), which lowers the burden, but with no annotations and no output schema the description must define what a brand protection submission is, what 'recent' bounds, and what the caller receives — none of that is present. An agent can supply account_id but has no idea what the response represents, how fresh it will be, or how large.

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 coverage is 100%: account_id is already described as 'The account ID' in the input schema, so the schema does the full documentation job. The description adds nothing parameter-level, which is acceptable at the 3 baseline for high coverage. No enums or nested objects create additional documentation needs.

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 ('List') and resource ('recent brand protection submissions'), clearly identifying the operation without restating the tool name verbatim. It is distinguishable from the brand-protection sibling set by resource type — no other sibling is named 'submissions' — though it stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from neighbors like list_brand_protection_alerts or list_brand_protection_matches.

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?

The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set contains close neighbors — list_brand_protection_alerts, list_brand_protection_matches, list_email_security_submissions — with no mention of the scenario that should select this one. Nothing is misleading, but there is a plain absence of routing context.

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