Submit the agent's answer for grading

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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: only one answer is allowed per episode, the episode terminates on submission, and the response contains the exact score and a grade receipt. It also discloses that the answer key is never shown. Annotations already cover read-only and idempotency traits, so this is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and format, followed by the terminal consequence and return behavior. Every sentence adds useful information: the format example, one-answer constraint, episode termination, return contents, and answer-key visibility.

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?

For a terminal submission tool with no output schema, the description explains the expected answer format, the one-shot nature of the call, the episode-ending consequence, and what the response will contain. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears missing.

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%, so episode_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds useful meaning for the answer parameter by specifying the JSON object format, a tariff example, and digit constraints (10 digits, 8 accepted) that go beyond the schema's generic reference to start_task.

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 the final decision for the episode. It distinguishes this terminal grading action from siblings like get_scorecard by noting that it ends the episode and returns the exact score plus a receipt.

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?

Clearly establishes when to use it: submit the final decision once per episode, and doing so ends the episode. It references start_task for the required answer format, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions among siblings.

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