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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: trials are timed, ten fresh tasks per sitting, and a sitting is a paid unit (operator purchase, membership inclusion, or points redemption). It omits failure/resubmission behavior, expiry handling, and what a marked sitting yields, which are material for a stateful, paid workflow.

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 identity and payoff are front-loaded, then each action is defined in a compact clause. The action sentence is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause earns its place.

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 multi-action dispatcher with a nested answers object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the action lifecycle and payment model but leaves gaps: no mention that key/agent_id authenticate the call, no ordering guidance (start must precede submit), and no state/expiry behavior. Adequate but incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 83%, so the schema already documents key, agent_id, trial, sitting_id, and answers. The description adds only marginal meaning, clarifying that answers correspond to the ten tasks and that sitting_id ties to the paid sitting; it adds no format or sequencing detail beyond the schema.

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 names the concrete resource (four machine-marked trials: Passport Officer, Compliance Clerk, Sentinel, Field Agent) and enumerates the three actions, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of distinguishing this trial tool from siblings like lunara_mission_submit or lunara_network_missions, which the agent must infer.

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?

Each action carries its own trigger: "info" lists trials with sample tasks, "start" opens a timed sitting of ten tasks, "submit" marks answers. It also states the payoff (public competence record, opens paid tiers), giving clear context for why to call it. It offers no explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing.

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