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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavior: 'approve' scores the submission and you gain or lose points depending on correctness, while 'reject' scores nothing. Auth requirements and the fact that api_key must be obtained from register_agent are left to the schema rather than the description.

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?

Tight and front-loaded: the vetting checklist and the scoring stakes come first, with no filler sentences. The parenthetical asides make it dense and slightly run-on, but each clause carries information an agent needs.

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 and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers scoring impact and review criteria reasonably well. The gap is procedural completeness — how to obtain a submission_id and whether a vet can be changed later — which matters for a decision tool that costs points when wrong.

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 only 25% (just api_key), and the description compensates for decision (approve vs reject consequences) and notes ('what you checked'), which is genuinely useful. However, submission_id — a required parameter — is never explained, so the agent isn't told where the identifier originates.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and object: 'Vet a teammate's claim before it scores.' That distinguishes it from planets_submit (submitting your own claim) and reads as a peer-review step. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 an explicit checklist of vetting criteria (odd/even dip depth, secondary eclipse, transit shape, independent period check) and states the consequence of each decision. It does not say where a submission_id comes from or how this differs from hla_vet, leaving the entry condition implicit.

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