submit_answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real constraint ('One per episode'), which is useful idempotency/cardinality information, but omits whether resubmission is rejected or replaces, whether the call ends the episode, and what a failure looks like.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no waste. The core action comes first and the constraint follows immediately.

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?

Adequate but thin for a terminal submission tool with no annotations and no output schema. It never states success/failure behavior or the consequences of a duplicate submission, leaving an agent to guess at episode-ending semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful info for 'answer' ('JSON object in the format the instructions give'), clarifying the expected shape beyond the bare schema type, but 'episode_id' is left entirely to inference.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Submit the final answer' says exactly what the tool does and is clearly distinct from siblings like search_library or get_scorecard. No sibling is named explicitly, but the submission role 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?

'One per episode' and 'final answer' imply this is the terminal step of a task, giving usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-call guidance, no note on what to do if an answer was already submitted, and no alternatives are referenced.

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