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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the one-proof-per-subject constraint and validation requirements, but it does not mention whether submission is destructive, requires claim ownership/authentication, or how the system responds to duplicate or invalid submissions.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs useful constraints into a compact space, though the 'Requires: claim_id (from task_claim)' line partly duplicates schema 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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must do more heavy lifting. It covers prerequisites and proof_data constraints, but leaves proof_type options and submission-outcome behavior unexplained, which an agent may need to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining proof_data semantics for reobserve tasks and pointing to evaluation_criteria for other categories. However, proof_type remains essentially undocumented beyond the schema's vague 'Proof type' and its default value.

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 states a specific action ('Submit your proof') and a clear resource boundary ('for a task you've claimed'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like task_claim and tasks_browse by representing the submission step, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 gives clear context: use after claiming a task, with claim_id sourced from task_claim. It also notes a hard constraint ('only one proof is accepted per person per subject') and the reobserve-specific data requirements. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the prerequisites are clear enough.

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