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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the fee formula and the return values, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., job persistence, triggering evaluation), permission requirements, or whether the submission is reversible, leaving some behavior undefined.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and tier choices, the second provides fee calculation and return expectations. No fluff or repetition.

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 submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to choose tiers, how fees are computed, and what it returns. It lacks explicit error-handling or next-step guidance, but given the surrounding sibling tools, the context is reasonably 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?

While the schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description enhances the semantics by explaining the fee formula (max($0.05, value * tier_bps / 10000)) and explicitly tying tier to the fee percentages. This adds meaning beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, especially for tier and job_value_usdc.

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 identifies the action ('Submit a job for evaluation') and the resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools (attest, get_fees, get_job) by focusing on the submission workflow. It also mentions the tier options and fee computation, which are specific to this tool.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to submit an evaluation job) and details the tier selection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to alternative tools (e.g., using evaluator_get_job to check status), so it stops short of fully explicit usage guidance.

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