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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: authentication requirements, the 'score-the-scorer' weighting mechanism, the 'facts only, never judgments' constraint, and that every response is Ed25519-signed. It does not detail side effects of actions (e.g., reversibility), but it goes beyond typical descriptions.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph but each sentence earns its place: action enumeration, authentication requirement, content constraints, and signature detail. The use of semicolons and parentheses packs information efficiently. It could be slightly more structured, but it is not wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description partially covers return expectations by describing what each action shows (e.g., 'work lists claims', 'credit shows your earned intel credit'). It also mentions response signing and pricing. However, it lacks explicit output formats and side-effect details, but the action-level outcomes given are sufficient for a functional understanding.

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?

The schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying parameter usage context (e.g., 'agent' for wallet address/callsign, 'evidence required for disputes', 'limit' for work/pool) and explaining the role of each action, which complements the schema without redundancy.

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 identifies the tool as an Intel Exchange with multiple explicit actions ('contribute', 'corroborate', 'work', 'pool', 'credit'), each with a specific purpose. It uses a specific verb+resource structure and distinguishes the tool from siblings by being a multi-action exchange, unlike the more specialized sibling tools.

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 description provides clear guidance on when to use each action (e.g., 'work lists claims needing a 2nd verifier', 'pool shows the corroborated pool') and mentions prerequisites ('Requires a challenge-claimed wallet for contribute/corroborate/credit'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the unique action set implies when this tool is the right choice.

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