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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the output behavior ('Returns whether the answer was accepted and the next step') and the special case of a signed receipt after the fifth step, which is meaningful. It does not discuss side effects deeper than 'submits', but it provides more detail than most tool descriptions.

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 two sentences with every word earning its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the return behavior is succinctly summarized without unnecessary detail.

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 the return value and the special case well, but it leaves the 'started' parameter unexplained and does not situate itself within the trail flow (e.g., mentioning that 'started' comes from trail_start). For this tool, an agent could infer the fields, but the missing explanation of 'started' is a notable gap.

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% and the description merely repeats that step, answer, and started are required and name is optional. It adds no meaning for 'started' (a number parameter) and doesn't clarify what 'answer' format or 'step' refers to beyond the names themselves. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 action and resource ('Submits an answer to one step'), which clearly distinguishes it from trail_start and other trail-related siblings. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the step scope and trail naming make 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 implies when this tool should be used: when a user has an answer to a step and needs to submit it. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like question_answer, nor does it mention when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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