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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the reobservation payout rules (3 points to the first 5 correct re-observers, 0 after the 5th) and the debt penalty for a wrong verdict, which materially affects how an agent should act on results. It does not disclose pagination or result-size behavior.

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-loads the purpose and returned fields in one sentence, then packs the scoring rules compactly. The economics block is dense and arguably closer to task_submit_proof's concern, but it earns its place by letting the agent judge whether browsing is worth it; only minor trimming is possible.

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 compensates by naming the result fields, and all three params are covered by the schema. Combined with the scoring rules, an agent has what it needs to browse and act; only return-format details such as ordering or pagination are absent.

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 limit, status, and category are already documented with defaults and an example enum-like value. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Browse open Task Market tasks') and enumerates the returned fields (id, category, points value, progress), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It also names the downstream siblings (task_claim, task_submit_proof), making its place in the workflow unambiguous.

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 explicit context for what a 'reobserve' task is and the exact next steps (claim with task_claim, file a verdict via task_submit_proof). It stops short of defining when-not-to-use or what the other categories ('research', 'general') imply, but the routing to alternatives is clear enough to act on.

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