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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: discloses the wallet-token auth, the keccak256-must-match-on-chain prerequisite, the consequence of poor text (no voucher), and an explicit prompt-injection safety note. It omits return format and any idempotency/rate behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first clause, then layers hash constraint, voucher consequence, and the injection warning. Every sentence earns its place, though the density and parentheticals make it slightly harder to scan than a clean 5.

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 3-parameter submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, auth, validation constraint, and failure consequence well. It leaves the 'job' parameter and the shape of any response undocumented, which keeps it just under 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 coverage is only 33% (only 'text' has a description with the 200–5000 char range). The description compensates for two of three: 'token' is identified as a wallet token and 'text' must hash to the on-chain deliverable. The 'job' parameter is left unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a real gap.

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?

Names a specific verb (report) and resource (jobs) and states exactly what to send: the text of the report delivered, with the wallet token. It distinguishes itself from job_complete by explaining that job_complete is the payout step that consumes this text. Slightly awkward phrasing ('Report jobs: send the text...') keeps it from being maximally crisp.

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 clear context: use it to submit report text, and explicitly ties it to the ordering with job_complete ('we check this text before signing the payout voucher'). It also implies the failure mode (junk gets no voucher), which steers effort. No explicit when-not or alternative tool is named, so it falls 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.