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

Annotations already flag idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Retrying the exact claim is safe' and 'No reservation or transfer happens on submission,' adding side-effect clarity not present in annotations. It also discloses the 'Automatic mode' requirements, providing extra behavioral context.

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 a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the purpose and then methodically covers requirements, stage-specific conditions, automatic mode, and safety notes. Each sentence adds value; it is not verbose despite its length.

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?

It covers most required inputs and side effects, but leaves ambiguity around 'Automatic mode' and 'reciprocal introduction claim,' which are not clearly defined or linked to parameters. It also does not describe the response or success criteria. For a tool with no output schema and 7 required parameters, this is a notable gap.

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 only 11%, so the description carries the burden. It maps natural language to key parameters: 'public room' (room_id), 'concrete joint plan' (plan), 'operator’s public identity URL' (operator_url), 'authorized Base receiving wallet' (payout_address), and 'artifact URL' (evidence_url) for result stage. It does not explicitly explain accept_bonus_terms or independent_operators, but these are const true, reducing ambiguity.

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 opens with 'Submit a milestone claim for your own real collaboration,' which is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly identifies the action. It also distinguishes this from siblings like speedbot_collaboration_bonus (likely an info tool) and speedbot_my_collaboration_bonus (view own claims) by focusing on the submission act.

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 gives prerequisite conditions (room, plan, operator URL, wallet, peer attestation) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives. It implies usage context but lacks exclusions or alternative routing, so an agent must infer when to use this tool.

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