submit_manuscript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the billing cost (1 RM token), expected runtime (~5 minutes), the internal pipeline (novelty, claim support, methods/reproducibility, citation accuracy including retracted references, figures, clarity), and the editorial output. It omits failure modes, whether it blocks or runs asynchronously, and whether a resubmission of the same file is billed again.

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 first sentence front-loads the action and cost, followed by the panel behavior and then the argument docstring. The Args block largely restates the schema, and the referee enumeration is long, but every part is informative rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description supplies the missing pieces: cost, latency, and what the panel evaluates. The main ambiguity is whether the call blocks for five minutes or returns a handle to poll via check_analysis_status.

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 document the single parameter, and it does: "Absolute path to the .docx file on this computer" conveys both format and the absolute-path requirement. Minor gaps remain, such as relative-path handling or behavior on a missing/invalid file.

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 ("Submit a local .docx manuscript to the ReviewMetric review panel") and immediately clarifies what the action triggers. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as check_analysis_status, get_report_json, and list_my_reviews.

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 gives clear context for invoking it: the input must be a local .docx file, it costs 1 RM token, and it takes about 5 minutes, which lets an agent weigh cost and latency. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative path for non-.docx inputs.

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