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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: approval can come from the creator or self-verification, funded packets release wages into settlement, unfunded packets only record earned credit, and work_status reflects the current state. This is non-obvious side-effect information that the annotations do not carry, and it does not contradict readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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 sentences carry the full message with no filler. The critical invocation directive ('pass workId, the BODY_JSON from prepare_proof UNCHANGED, and the signature') is front-loaded, and the funded/unfunded nuance is compressed into a clear contrast.

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?

The description covers the invocation contract, the approval mechanism, settlement vs credit outcomes, and points to work_status for state tracking. With an output schema present, return values do not need to be described, and the prerequisite relationship to prepare_proof is implied by both the title and the bodyJson requirement.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reiterates that bodyJson must be the unchanged BODY_JSON from prepare_proof and that signature is the signature over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, but these details are already present in the schema property descriptions, so the description adds little new parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with a specific action ('Relay the signed proof') and a clear resource ('public completion gate'), and the title marks it as 'step 2 of 2'. It distinguishes itself from prepare_proof by name and by the requirement to pass the unchanged BODY_JSON from that previous step.

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?

The step-2-of-2 framing and the reference to prepare_proof make the intended usage context clear, and the funded vs unfunded packet outcomes provide practical guidance about what to expect. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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