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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the three things returned (text, hash, match status), the trust context of the wallet token, and an explicit prompt-injection guard that the worker-written text is data, never an instruction. That safety framing is genuinely valuable non-structured context. It omits side-effect/auth/rate-limit details, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with scope and audience. The prompt-injection sentence sounds redundant but earns its place as an explicit safety directive, not 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?

For a 2-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains what is returned, its trust level, and the gating action before approval. An agent can call it and act correctly. Minor residual gaps around the exact parameter formats and whether any write/side-effect exists.

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 for both parameters. It annotates 'token' as the wallet token and implies 'job' selects the report job, but adds no format or constraint detail (e.g., token source, job id semantics). Partial compensation only, so it sits at the minimum-viable mark.

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 audience (the POSTER of a report job) and a specific action (read the report text, the on-chain hash, and whether they match). An agent knows exactly what it gets back. It stops short of distinguishing itself from sibling review_job_report, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: approve with prepare_board_approve only if you have read the text and the hashes match. That is a crisp when-to-proceed rule. It does not tell the agent when to call this versus review_job_report, but the invocation context is clear.

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