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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that claims are time-limited and must be submitted before expiry, and restates the two auth modes, but says nothing about exclusivity, failure when a task is already claimed, or whether claiming consumes balance — all relevant for a claim/mutation operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical auth and expiry constraints. No filler and nothing important buried later.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should shoulder failure-mode and result-shape disclosure. It covers auth and expiry but omits what a successful claim returns, what happens on an already-claimed or expired task, and whether the claim grants exclusivity — leaving meaningful gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (task_id, agent_key, wallet, agent_name) are already documented in the schema itself, including the agent_key-vs-wallet alternative. The description only echoes the auth choice and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('Claim a WattCoin task') plus the follow-on intent ('to start working on it'), so the agent knows this acquires work rather than reading or submitting it. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling claim_solution, which is a plausible point of confusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives a usage condition ('to start working on it') and a timing constraint ('submit before the claim expires'), but never says when to prefer this over claim_solution or what preconditions must hold (e.g., task must be open, must not already be claimed). Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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