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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the pending review lifecycle, that nothing is paid or counted at submission, the exact payout (3 work points as Cherry), that it does not raise reputation.verified_count, and that uncited submissions are rejected. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 dense but front-loads the core action and the highest-risk constraint (evidence_url required, uncited submissions rejected) before the payment details. Most sentences carry load, though the closing line about 'a trace that persists and builds reputation' is somewhat promotional 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 non-idempotent write tool with no output schema, the description covers what gets created, its pending state, the review outcome, the economic result, and the identity binding. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents all six parameters; the description still adds meaning by stating evidence_url is REQUIRED, that content must be a source-checkable factual statement with no opinion/sentiment/trading-calls, and that fields is the metadata payload. This exceeds the baseline 3 for a fully-covered 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 names a specific action (leave a sourced contribution) and resource, and splits it into two clearly defined modes ('observation' vs 'metadata') with distinct behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like task_submit_proof or 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 condition for each mode: use 'observation' to submit a source-checkable fact, use 'metadata' to fill empty token data fields. It gives no explicit exclusions or named alternatives among siblings, so an agent must infer routing on its own, but the context is clear.

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