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 the call moves funds, posts work, is gated on human confirmation, needs a session token, and operates on devnet test money only. It doesn't cover failure modes, idempotency, or what 'verified' means in practice.

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?

Purpose and consequence are front-loaded, then the confirmation warning and auth requirement follow immediately. The semicolon-chained clauses pack a lot in, but every sentence carries a distinct constraint with no filler.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description supplies the critical context: irreversible side effect, human-confirmation gate, credential source, and test-only environment. Return behavior and edge cases are unstated but less critical here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three required parameters. It explains only 'session' (obtained from knos_sign_in); 'commitment' is left entirely undefined and 'evidence_url' is only implied by the tool title.

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 and resource ('Posts a milestone's public evidence page') and adds the consequential outcome ('verified evidence releases the escrow to the maker'). That escrow-release effect clearly separates it from generic post/submit siblings like knos_task_submit.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('CONFIRM FIRST... Ask the human you work for before calling') and tells the agent where the session token comes from ('knos_sign_in returned'). It stops short of naming alternative tools for the case where the agent shouldn't post evidence, so no exclusion guidance.

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