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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the mutating one-shot nature is structured data. The description adds the useful outcome that the call mints a bearer credit token, but says nothing about what happens to the ticket on a wrong answer, whether attempts are consumed, or whether the same ticket can be resubmitted.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome before the parameter branching. The parenthetical field list in sentence two is dense but every item maps to a real branch; no filler text.

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 an 11-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers input selection well and names the returned token format (`crd_...`). It leaves gaps on failure modes and on exactly what the minted token grants, which matters given the absence of an output schema.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine synthesis the schema lacks: it groups the 11 flat parameters into house-task vs bounty-task vs mode-specific (`descriptor_derive`, `address_script`, `psbt_feerate`, `json_schema`, `sha256`) sets, which the per-property descriptions state only in isolation.

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 (submit), a specific resource (a solved WorkSats task ticket `tsk_...`), and the concrete outcome (minting a signed bearer credit token `crd_...`). This clearly separates it from siblings like `worksats_get_task` (fetch a ticket) and `worksats_credits` (read balance).

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?

Explicitly branches on task type: house tasks require `checksum`/`scriptPubKeys`, bounty tasks require `answer` or mode-specific fields. That is real conditional guidance, though it never states the prerequisite ordering (call `worksats_get_task` first) or what to do when a submission fails.

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