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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: role-based authorization requirements, the preservation rule for the legacy assessment hash, and an explicit boundary that this tool does not perform wallet signing. It does not describe how conflicts or overwrites are handled, keeping it below 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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The later sentences are terse and somewhat telegraphic ('Wallet signing remains on first-party pages'), but they carry real constraints rather than noise.

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 critical write-side concerns an agent would otherwise miss: authorization scope and the boundary around wallet signing. It is still incomplete for a tool with nested, fully undocumented parameters and no output schema, since the caller cannot infer what assessment/attestation must contain or what is returned.

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% across four parameters, including nested objects, and the description never explains, maps, or gives meaning to 'network', 'attestation', 'assessment', or 'previous_report_id'. The phrase 'legacy assessment hash' loosely hints at assessment content but does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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?

Names a specific verb (save) and object (each criterion's explanation and evidence), which clearly distinguishes this write tool from read siblings like get_verification_review. It does not explicitly call out a sibling or state how it differs from record_managed_bounty_review, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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 workflow context ('before wallet signing') and an authorization condition ('Authorized reviewer or accepted assigned agent only'), which implies when to use it. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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