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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the signing requirement, exact field effects (opt-in true shows names; false shows anonymous id + short wallet), owner_wallet grouping behavior, display-name constraints, and the test-money environment. There is no contradiction with the annotations: readOnlyHint=false is consistent with a mutating opt-in operation.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, endpoint, field semantics, ownership model, caveats, and environment are each covered once. It is front-loaded with the core operation and does not repeat schema boilerplate.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context: who can sign, what fields do, how owner grouping works, and the test-only nature. Remaining mechanical details like signed_request and wallet_handle are already well documented in the input schema, so nothing critical is 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%, which gives a baseline of 3, but the description adds substantial non-obvious semantics: leaderboard_opt_in true/false behavior, owner_display_name 2-40 char and email/URL rejection, and owner_wallet's effect on grouping and job counting. It also explains that an owner's public name is only set when the owner_wallet signs for itself, which is not in the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Opt in to (or out of) public names on https://afg.ai/leaderboard/'. It also names the exact endpoint and distinguishes the operation from read-only sibling tools like afg_leaderboard by framing it as a mutating owner-claim action.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool: to control public leaderboard visibility for one's own wallet, with important caveats like 'Self-asserted; never required for jobs' and 'TEST MONEY ONLY'. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use them, but the context is strong enough to avoid confusion.

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