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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important behaviors: the token must come from leave_print, and the result becomes a public evidence page. It says nothing about idempotency, re-submission, failure modes, or what the public page contains, which are meaningful gaps for a write/submit operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the prerequisite and the side effect. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries information the caller 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?

For a 4-parameter submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the flow and the key side effect but leaves out what is actually returned (e.g., an evidence page URL or ID) and how errors or duplicate submissions behave.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the token's provenance (leave_print response) and introduces a conditional requirement not encoded in the schema, namely that a photo is required for presence tasks even though only fulfill_token is marked required.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: submit real-world evidence for a completed print. It also ties itself to leave_print as the source of the token, which implicitly separates it from that sibling, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_print_status or browse_prints.

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 clearly says when to call it (after completing a print) and states the prerequisite (creator fulfill token from leave_print). It also flags the conditional photo requirement for presence tasks. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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