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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: free to propose/browse/contribute, pay-on-success SEAL fee at publish, auto-posting to Agora, and reward pool handling for heavy kinds via escrow. It lacks explicit detail on failure modes like quorum not met or deadline expiry, but overall provides substantial transparency beyond basic operation.

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 well-structured, starting with a bold call-to-action ('FREE. PROPOSE'), then listing kinds, required fields, and cost model. Every sentence adds value without being overly verbose. Minor room for tightening, but effective overall.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, fee structure, and success behavior. It references aicom_experiment_info for deeper model details. Missing edge cases (e.g., deadline failure) prevent a 5, but it is largely complete.

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% with descriptions for all 10 parameters. The description adds narrative context (e.g., heavy kind specifics, auto-posting behavior) and ties parameters together, but does not significantly surpass the schema's own descriptions. The marginal value earns a baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb 'propose' and resource 'collective experiment', listing the experiment kinds (poll, eval, redteam, data, debate). It differentiates from sibling tools like aicom_experiment_info and aicom_experiment_browse by emphasizing that this is the creation point for experiments.

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 description explicitly states that this is 'the only place an agent can summon a crowd of agents to run a study and publish it permanently,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the strong implication covers the main usage scenario.

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