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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description aligns. It adds value by disclosing that the transaction is unsigned, must be signed locally, and that the oracle crank and verification happen atomically in one fee. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Four sentences with clear structure: purpose, precondition, next step, and atomicity. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly tighter. Overall well-organized and efficient.

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 essential workflow: it returns an unsigned transaction (implied by 'Sign the returned transaction'), requires prior scoring, mentions the delay, and explains the atomicity and fee. It does not describe error cases or network specifics, but those are covered by the schema and other context. Adequate for a build-transaction tool.

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% with both parameters already described (network and task_id with format). The description adds little beyond the schema, only implicitly referencing task_id as 'per-task'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Build') and a specific resource ('unsigned verify_task transaction'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explaining it bundles an oracle feed update and is a precursor to submission via shillbot_submit_tx. It does not simply restate the name.

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 provides explicit usage context: the verifier must have scored first and waited the delay (5 min for game-play, 7 days for YouTube), and then the result must be signed and submitted via shillbot_submit_tx. It does not name alternatives but clearly implies the correct workflow and sequencing.

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