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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that success returns a Shamir share; it does not cover permissions, irreversibility, validation failures, rate limits, or what happens on incorrect solutions.

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 a single efficient sentence with the action and outcome front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with three required parameters, a nested solution object referencing an external schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is significantly under-specified. It does not explain share_index, the solution schema indirection, or error behavior.

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 67%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the word 'solution'. In particular, the required share_index parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the external solution_schemas[ptype].submit reference is not explained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: submit a puzzle solution. It also states the successful outcome, returning the Shamir share. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like bounty_combine or bounty_discover, but it does not explicitly contrast with any of them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bounty_combine or bounty_next_move, and no prerequisites are stated. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'submit a puzzle solution'.

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