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

Beyond annotations, it discloses state transitions (needs_fixtures), locking behavior (contract freezes on opening), idempotency details (identical repeat succeeds; changes return 409), hidden-input endpoint behavior, size/count constraints, and the 403/pledge_url case.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds operational value: constraints, state behavior, idempotency, hidden-input handling, and the alternative path. There is little wasted text for a complex, 10-parameter mutation tool.

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 key behavioral and routing details for a complex mutation, including failure cases and the alternative for unrequested pots. It is still missing an explicit success return description, though no output schema exists and parameter semantics are partially covered elsewhere.

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 only 20%, and the description only adds meaning for cases, rubric, and size/count constraints. It does not explain several required or important parameters such as bounty_id, agent_key, delivery, pass_score, key_column, input_schema, or output_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?

It states a specific action: the requesting key attaches public/hidden cases and a rubric to open a pot. It also distinguishes the unrequested-pot path by naming bounty_pledge as the alternative.

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 clearly says this tool is for the key that asked for a pot, describes the waiting state, and gives the alternative path for pots no key requested via bounty_pledge with contract. It even states the 403/pledge_url outcome for that non-requester case.

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