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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses persistence (saves to the user's OpenMark account), real side effects (real API calls, spends credits), and the return contract (job_id, poll get_results for results). It does not mention auth requirements, credit-exhaustion failure behavior, or expected run duration for long benchmarks.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and cost warning, followed by the follow-up call and the format reference. No filler and every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns -- and it does (job_id, poll get_results). Combined with the cost/persistence disclosure and the input-format pointer, an agent has everything needed to invoke and follow up correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by pointing task_yaml at get_task_format for the expected format and framing models as the execution targets, though it says nothing extra about upload_uid or stability_runs.

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?

States a specific compound action (save task YAML to the account and run it on given models) with clear scope. It names the two sibling tools that bracket the workflow, get_task_format for input and get_results for output, so an agent can place it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: reference get_task_format for the YAML, then poll get_results after invocation. It also warns that the call spends credits, which conditions when an agent should proceed. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g. cheap dry runs or local-only benchmarks).

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