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

The description explicitly discloses that the challenge is immutable and requires an Ed25519-signed envelope, including exactly what must and must not be hashed, the freshness window for issued_at, and the UUIDv7 requirement. Since no annotations are provided, this is a substantial behavioral disclosure, though it does not explain what the server does after accepting a challenge or what error responses look like.

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 first sentence is a clear, front-loaded purpose statement, and the numbered construction steps are technically precise. However, the description is a dense single paragraph that repeats the entire auth schema description, and separating the auth mechanics from the business-level behavior would improve readability.

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 auth envelope construction is unusually thorough and gives an agent everything needed to sign the call. However, the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and the description leaves important context unexplained: what resolution_id refers to, what reason_code/detail should contain, what happens after submission, and how failures are surfaced.

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?

The auth parameter is documented in exhaustive detail, but the description adds no meaning for the other three required parameters: resolution_id, reason_code, and detail. With schema coverage at only 25%, the description does not compensate for these gaps, leaving an agent unable to determine valid reason codes or expected detail content.

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 opens with a concrete verb and object: 'Submit a signed, immutable resolution challenge.' This makes it clear the tool is a mutation and distinctly different from siblings like get_resolutions or register. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the action and resource are specific enough to identify the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as make_prediction or get_resolutions, and no conditions or prerequisites are stated beyond the implied need for a registered Ed25519 key. The only operational instruction is how to construct the auth envelope, which addresses mechanics rather than tool selection.

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