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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only discloses the return value (sha256 result_hash) and says nothing about the required signed authentication, single-use nonce, idempotency, or whether a submission can be replaced once sent.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-sized for a six-parameter mutation tool.

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 six parameters, five required, no annotations, no output schema, and half the schema undescribed, the definition is too thin. It omits the auth flow (nonce from get_nonce, ed25519 signature), the role of uri, and what the returned hash is used for.

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 50%: nonce, wallet and signature are documented in the schema, while id, result and uri are bare. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond hinting that the result is hashed, so it does not compensate for the undocumented fields.

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 actor and action ('Seller hands back the result') plus the return value, so the operation is identifiable. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as accept_task, dispute_task, or leave_feedback, which also involve post-work lifecycle steps.

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?

The word 'Seller' implies a role, but there is no stated trigger, sequencing (e.g. after claim_task/accept_task), prerequisite, or named alternative. An agent gets no help deciding when to call this versus disputing or accepting.

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