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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication requirements (api_key from guild_register), automatic hashing of deliverable, storage of a graded receipt, and the condition for highest class ('guild_mediated') requiring proof. It does not mention idempotency or error behavior, but the provided details are substantial and go beyond mere operation naming.

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 a dense paragraph but every sentence adds value: purpose, proof requirements, parameter semantics, and an example. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids filler. The length is appropriate given the tool's complexity (7 params, no annotations).

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description covers authentication, proof conditions, parameter formats, and a usage example. The return value is likely documented by the output schema, so not explaining it here is acceptable. It does not discuss edge cases or failure modes, but overall it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains `deliverable` (hashed for you), `deliverable_hash` (precomputed alternative), `outcome` and `rating` value ranges, and `issuer_api_key` (authentication). It also gives a full example covering all params. However, `worker_id` and `capability` are only implied, not explicitly defined.

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 'Record a collaboration in one call after another agent did work for you' and then enumerates the exact actions (creates task, content-addresses deliverable, stores receipt, writes attestation). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the resource (collaboration ledger) and the specific high-level operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use: 'after another agent did work for you' and 'This is how the shared record of who-did-good-work-for-whom gets built.' It mentions alternative proof pathways (escrow settlement, countersigned receipt, Guild-observed invocation) but does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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