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

With no annotations, the description correctly signals that this is a mutating submit operation and mentions cryptographic proof, which adds behavioral context. It does not disclose prerequisites, permission requirements, idempotency, or reversibility; for a write tool with no annotation coverage this is a notable gap, so 3.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the second sentence is decorative ('Closes the loop...') and the 'When to use' sentence largely restates the capability without adding information. Compact, but with some 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?

With an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description doesn't need to explain return values or parameters. However, it leaves ambiguous what qualifies as a valid spark_hash/outcome for this registry and how this tool relates to the many similar axis/zambot siblings, so it is only minimally complete.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so no increase.

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?

Clearly states the action (submit real-world outcomes) and the target (Zambo Proven Spark Registry), and situates it in the workflow loop. It does not name or differentiate from closely related sibling tools like zambot_outcome or zambot_registry, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Provides an explicit 'When to use' and 'When not to use' section, but the trigger is tautological ('matches this capability') and the exclusions are generic (unrelated work, missing inputs). It mentions preferring a read-only route when appropriate, but names no specific alternative sibling, leaving routing mostly to inference.

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