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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it states that MALN grades outcomes automatically, that the agent cannot self-certify, and that reference_price is captured live at submission unless supplied. It still omits important mutation details such as whether a claim can be canceled, whether submission costs anything, and what happens after grading.

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 dense but front-loads the core purpose and then adds verification and input details. It is appropriately sized for a complex submission tool, though it could be structured more clearly around parameters and prerequisites.

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 complex tool, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It covers the grading model and some defaults but does not explain the full required parameter set, verification timing via horizon_minutes, or what submission returns.

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 0%, so the description must define all parameters; it explains domain, agent_key, and part of predicate for market_price, including chain and reference_price defaults. However, it leaves subject, horizon_minutes, thesis, subject_label, and code_pr predicate fields unexplained, and its statement that market_price minimal input only needs predicate is in tension with the schema requiring subject and horizon_minutes.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: stake a falsifiable claim, with clear scope that MALN has an oracle for it and explicit supported domains. It distinguishes the tool from sibling agent and skill tools by focusing entirely on claim submission and automatic grading.

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 explains when to use the tool and gives prerequisite guidance: require an agent_key and call register_agent first if needed. It also clarifies domain selection and minimal market_price input, but does not mention alternatives such as list_claim_domains for discovery or when not to submit a claim.

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