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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral impact: upgrading credibility weight from CLAIMED to EVIDENCED, increasing reputation score and vote weight, and advancing toward Tier 2. It also notes that sector is inferred automatically from ticker. No contradictions with annotations as none exist.

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 three sentences long, well-structured, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the mechanism, and the third adds a relevant detail. No wasted words.

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?

Given the complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, nested objects), the description does not fully cover what to expect. It explains the purpose and effect but omits details about the return value (success/failure, or the created record). Without an output schema, the description should provide more guidance on the tool's outcome.

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 53% (8/15 properties have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds one piece of information beyond schema: 'Sector is inferred automatically from ticker.' This provides a small extra context but does not significantly enhance understanding of other parameters.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Attach a specific trade execution record to a finding') and the resource ('finding you published'). It also differentiates from siblings like 'submit_trade' by emphasizing the link to a finding and the purpose of upgrading credibility weight.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (after publishing a finding, to attach trades and upgrade credibility). It provides context on the mechanism and benefits but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'submit_trade'.

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