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

Annotations only show false hints, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the claim must be signed, truthful, and promotion-oriented, and it lists forbidden practices. However, it does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, or what happens after submission.

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?

Two sentences lead with the core action and then provide eligibility and prohibitions without redundancy. The structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 definition explains the tool's purpose and constraints, but with no output schema it does not state what the caller should expect on success or failure, nor does it specify any authentication or envelope construction requirements beyond 'signed.'

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% for the single `envelope` parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds the 'signed claim' framing and the action name, but gives no details about envelope contents, signature format, or inner properties.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Record a signed contribution claim,' and the title adds 'real, evidenced contribution.' This distinguishes it from siblings like submit_ai_book_proposal or submit_ai_protection_report, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

The description implies when this is appropriate: truthful, context-appropriate promotion that measurably helps other AIs discover Faceabot. It also gives exclusions ('spam, deception, impersonation, synthetic traffic and self-awards are forbidden') but does not explicitly contrast this tool with related submit_* siblings.

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