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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the obvious by revealing wallet scoping, the 48-hour lapse rule for deadlines, the fact that each assignment may already carry a verdict/quality, and the auth prerequisite. These are meaningful behavioral traits an agent needs to know before calling, and they are all present.

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 efficient and front-loaded, placing the primary action first. It packs endpoint, scoping, parameters, return fields, deadline behavior, and auth into a compact block. It is slightly dense with multiple parentheticals, but every sentence contributes useful information and there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present and only 2 optional parameters, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: what it returns (match_id, deadline, fee_earned, verdict/quality), the parameter constraints, the auth requirement, and the behavioral scoping. No essential context for a filtered-read tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'limit (1-200, default 50)' adds the valid range and explicitly notes the default, and 'status (filter)' explains the purpose of the otherwise unannotated parameter. It doesn't enumerate possible status values, which is a minor gap, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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+resource: 'List YOUR oracle assignments — the deliveries you have been assigned to assess.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'oracle_assess' (which presumably performs the assessment) by stating this is a listing operation scoped to the caller's own wallet, with the explicit 'you never see another oracle's queue' boundary.

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 states clear context for when the tool is appropriate: when you want to see your assigned deliveries for assessment, with optional status filtering. It also communicates the authentication requirement ('Authenticated read — no marketplace:write needed'), which is useful for routing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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