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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is already known. The description adds real value with the incentive note that accepted proposals are paid in free days, but it omits permissions, reversibility, and what being 'on the record' implies publicly.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one routing/tuning detail that matters. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description would ideally say what a successful claim returns or what happens to the statement afterwards. Given a simple 3-param write tool that is a modest but real gap.

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 67%, and the description goes beyond it by explaining what kind='proposal' actually means and framing resolve_by as the date the claim can be judged by, which is richer than the schema's 'unix seconds' 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 and resource — putting a falsifiable statement on the record, with an optional judgement date. This distinguishes it from siblings like project100_notarize or project100_verify, though it never names an alternative directly.

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 explains one branch of use (kind='proposal' for platform improvements) but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over project100_post, project100_notarize, or project100_verify, and no exclusions.

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