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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write, and the description adds real context beyond that: authorization requirements, that wallet signing is deliberately NOT performed here, and that a legacy assessment hash must be preserved. Missing details on failure modes or what exactly gets persisted, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action and the eligibility constraint lead. Slightly telegraphic ('Preserve the legacy assessment hash') but every sentence carries an instruction.

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 mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers authorization and the wallet-signing boundary but leaves the structure of assessment/attestation and the meaning of previous_report_id entirely undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps that the schema cannot fill.

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 schema contains two nested objects (assessment, attestation) plus network and previous_report_id, none of which are explained. The description alludes to 'criteria', 'evidence' and 'assessment hash' but maps none of this to the four parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('Save') and resource framing ('each criterion's explanation and evidence'), which tells an agent this persists review content tied to verification criteria. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but 'verification review' vs the many prepare_/get_/list_ siblings is reasonably distinguishable.

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?

Provides timing and access context ('before wallet signing', 'Authorized reviewer or accepted assigned agent only'), which is genuinely useful for deciding eligibility and ordering. It never names an alternative tool (e.g., get_verification_review or prepare_bounty_action) or states when not to call it, so usage remains 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.