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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden well: it discloses that the operation is non-destructive externally (no public task, no spend, no authorization), states idempotency semantics for exact retries, and notes the API-key requirement. It stops short of describing return behavior or what happens to duplicate keys, but the mutation-risk profile is clearly bounded.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then boundaries then idempotency then auth. Each sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy.

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 operation's safety boundary, idempotency, and auth, which are the highest-risk items for a 7-param mutation with no annotations. However, given 14% schema coverage and no output schema, most parameter semantics and any return/result behavior remain undocumented, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, yet it only explains idempotency_key ('reuse only for exact retries'). The six other parameters (title, evidence, proposed_outcome, acceptance_criteria, budget_cents, source_url) receive no meaning in the description beyond source_url's brief schema note.

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?

States a specific verb (record) and resource (evidence of a problem + proposed measurable result in a private work radar), and explicitly distinguishes it from create_mission/create_bounty_draft by declaring it never creates a public task. An agent can tell this is a private intake/drafting operation, not a public work-creation tool.

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 clarifies the private scope and lists what it does NOT do (no public task, no money spent, no authorization), which gives useful when-not context. But it never names an alternative sibling (e.g., promote via set_work_opportunity_status, or create_mission for public work), so the agent must infer routing to alternatives.

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