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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description significantly expands on these by detailing that it awards points and credits, adds strikes on rejection (blocking at 3), requires linked handles, and performs verification. It also explains the quote post URL requirement and failure behavior when a handle is missing, providing rich behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 longer than average but each sentence adds necessary detail—purpose, platform list, quote exception, verification, handle requirement, and consequences. It front-loads the core action and then expands logically, though a slight trim could improve focus without losing essential caveats.

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 complex write operation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (linked handle), platform-specific behaviors, failure modes, and post-submission effects (points, strikes). It leaves no critical operational detail unexplained, making it fully adequate for an agent to execute correctly.

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%, so parameters are documented, but the description adds crucial semantics: reply_id comes from find_opportunities, and reply_url for quote posts must be the user's own quote post URL, not the original. This clarifies ambiguous edge cases that the schema alone doesn't capture, significantly improving correct invocation.

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 tool submits a URL for a claimed opportunity, referencing reply_id from find_opportunities. It specifies supported platforms and the quote post special case, making its function distinct from siblings like submit_campaign_work without needing further disambiguation.

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 implies usage after find_opportunities and details platform-specific behavior (X quote posts vs. replies). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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