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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost, latency, isolated Docker verification, and earning mechanics, but it omits submission outcomes, moderation/review behavior, failure handling, and wallet requirements beyond implying a wallet earns credits.

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 description is only two sentences, but it front-loads promotional incentive text in all caps before stating the actual action. The incentive details are relevant yet distract from the core purpose and usage condition.

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?

It covers the precondition and destination queue reasonably well for a mutation-style submission tool without output schema. However, it leaves gaps around what happens after submission, how verification results are returned, and how royalty/credits accrue.

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 schema already defines all six parameters. The description reinforces the required verified-build and minimal-diff concepts but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states the action: submitting a minimal diff to an isolated Docker verification queue after solving a MISS error. It distinguishes contribution from the sibling unlock tool implicitly, but it does not explicitly contrast with unlock_verified_fix or the diagnostic siblings.

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 gives a clear invocation condition: call after solving a MISS error locally with a verified passing build (exit_code === 0). It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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