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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavior that the reply only says correct or not correct and never reveals the answer, plus that method is "never published". It is silent on resubmission, overwriting, rate limits and what happens on a malformed or duplicate submission, which matters for a submit tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the most decision-relevant fact (the reply never reveals the right answer), then the optional fields. Nothing is padded.

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?

For a submit-style tool with a deeply nested signature object, no annotations and no output schema, the description correctly explains the response shape and the optionality of method/name/signature. It leaves open submission lifecycle questions (repeat answers, whether an answer locks, failure modes) that an agent would want before calling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, answer, confidence, method, name and signature, including the exact signing preimage. The description only restates which fields are optional and adds a "see /about" pointer, so it adds little meaning beyond the 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?

"Answer one of today's puzzles" gives a specific verb and a scoped resource, and the confidence clause signals this is a scored submission rather than a lookup. It is clearly distinct from puzzle_get, puzzles_today and leaderboard, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by "today's puzzles" and the required puzzle id, so an agent can infer it needs an id from puzzles_today first. There is no explicit statement of when to submit versus fetch (probe/puzzle_get) or whether multiple or repeat submissions are allowed.

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