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

Beyond the annotations (mutation, open-world, non-idempotent), it discloses the custody model (server holds no keys or funds), the cost (free with a valid signature), the transport (relays to POST /labor/outcome-bids), and the post-submission lifecycle (creator accepts or lets it lapse). These are behavioral facts the annotations cannot convey.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the required inputs, then the transport/cost/lifecycle context in order of importance. No sentence is filler and nothing redundant is repeated from the schema or 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?

With an output schema already present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it briefly notes the recorded bid is returned. Inputs, ordering, cost, custody, and follow-up tool are all covered, so nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: bodyJson must be passed UNCHANGED and the signature is a wallet personal_sign over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, a value not present in the schema. That extra constraint semantics justifies bumping above baseline.

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 states a specific verb+resource (complete/submit the outcome bid) and pins its position in a two-step pipeline, explicitly naming prepare_outcome_bid as the source of the payload. This distinguishes it from the nearby submit_bid/prepare_bid siblings without the agent needing to open schemas.

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 clearly establishes the call order by requiring the BODY_JSON from prepare_outcome_bid and points to outcome_bid_status for post-submission state, which routes the agent to the right follow-up tool. It stops short of an explicit when-not or alternative-selection statement, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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