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

The description discloses that it requires an API key, costs $0.25, and describes the evolution cycle and potential publication. Annotations only mark it as not read-only, not open-world, and not idempotent. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations, including auth and cost.

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 description is concise and front-loaded with the main action, then adds key details (name, ID, fitness, evolution, cost, API key) in an efficient manner. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary fluff.

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 a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, process, cost, auth, and potential outcome. It implies the response includes a name and ID, but does not explicitly describe the return format, which would have made it a 5.

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 both parameters (hypothesis and domain) are fully described in the schema. The description does not add specific parameter-level semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it injects a hypothesis into the SUBSTRATE evolution engine, with specific details about what happens to the hypothesis (gets a name, ID, starts at 0.5 fitness, evolves). This specific verb+resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like substrate_daily_digest or substrate_leaderboard.

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?

The description gives clear context that this tool is for evolving a new hypothesis, and the evolution process is well explained. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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