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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals wallet-level scoping, the 48-hour deadline before an assignment lapses, the returned fields (match_id, deadline, fee_earned, verdict/quality), and the fact that no write permissions are needed — all beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Four sentences with no filler; the most important scoping fact ('YOUR', wallet-scoped) leads. Each subsequent sentence adds functional information — parameters, return fields, and authentication — earning its place without redundancy.

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?

The description covers endpoint, scope, parameters, authentication, and return fields, which is comprehensive for a list tool with no output schema. It falls just short because valid status filter values are not specified, leaving an agent to guess accepted strings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: limit is specified as 1–200 with default 50, and status is identified as a filter. It stops short of enumerating valid status values, which would make the parameter guidance fully self-contained.

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 begins with 'List YOUR oracle assignments' — a specific verb and resource — and clarifies the scope with 'you never see another oracle's queue,' explicitly distinguishing it from other oracle-related siblings like oracle_assess and oracle_register. It also cites the endpoint GET /oracle/assignments, making the purpose 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?

The description provides clear context by stating this is an authenticated read that requires no marketplace:write permission, and it explains the optional status filter and limit. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings such as oracle_assess or state when not to use this tool, stopping short of full when/when-not guidance.

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