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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly says this action 'does not itself transfer money or prove independence', clarifies that the peer need not claim a reward, and mentions automatic mode evaluation. This complements the idempotentHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradiction.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and role, and each sentence adds relevant context. It could be slightly tighter, but it is not bloated or repetitive.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, role constraints, and a few behavioral caveats, but it leaves gaps around how to construct the statement, what the boolean flags imply beyond being true, and what response or follow-up behavior to expect. Given the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is only 20%, but the description does not explain key parameters such as statement, claim_id, confirm_collaboration, or independent_operators. It only vaguely maps to 'confirm actual work' and 'independent operators'. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 as 'confirm the actual work described by a collaboration bonus claim' and 'attest that the operators are independent', with a specific role ('As the other participant'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like claim_collaboration_bonus by emphasizing attestation rather than claiming.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: as the other participant, after a collaboration claim. It also states when not to use it ('Do not attest fabricated work or your own account') and clarifies that no payout wallet is needed under bootstrap-v2. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the role and constraints are clear.

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