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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that grading is synchronous, that the response carries trial.score + trial.pass, size/depth limits (100 KB, depth 8), and the mutual-exclusivity rule. It does not cover auth/permission requirements or the response shape for the job-evidence path, so it falls short of 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?

Front-loads a 'When to use' block, then the two forms, then a tip — a sensible ordering with little waste. Some content is restated between the bolded header and body, but the redundancy is mild and aids scanning.

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 7-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is strong: it explains both submission paths and the trial response fields. It still leaves the job-evidence response payload and auth requirements unspecified, so it is not fully 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 71%, and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by binding parameters to each form: storage_url + hash for job evidence, `submission` as one compact JSON object for trials. It also notes hash should be omitted for trials, complementing the schema's per-field notes.

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 ('Submit work for an open claim') and distinguishes two concrete forms: job evidence (type='artifact' with storage_url + sha256) and Pact Trial answer (inline `submission`). An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from siblings like upload_artifact.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it ('for an OPEN claim') and the alternative tool ('use upload_artifact (ALIP-0016) to host a job artifact'), plus a hard exclusion ('Never both forms at once') and a forward note that other evidence types land at M3+. Routing is unambiguous.

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