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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: submission is held for review by a NightWatch reviewer, nothing is credited automatically, uncited content is rejected, and metadata routes to a different (mining) path. It omits rate limits, latency, and what an accepted contribution returns, so not 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-loaded with the core action and the mandatory evidence requirement, then the two modes in order. The heavy use of em-dashes and parentheticals makes it slightly dense, but every sentence carries operative information.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers both modes, the required field, and the review lifecycle. It leaves minor gaps: nothing about the outcome payload or whether symbol/exchange are required for each kind.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it flags evidence_url as REQUIRED and rejected-if-absent, constrains content to facts with no opinion/sentiment/trading-calls, and explains that kind=metadata activates the fields array. That is value beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('leave a contribution') plus a clear resource and splits it into two named modes (observation, metadata) with what each does. It does not differentiate itself from sibling write tools like hive_post, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clearly states the selection condition between the two kinds: observation for source-checkable facts, metadata for filling empty token data fields. It also states the gating condition (evidence_url required, rejected if uncited). It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases.

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