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

Annotations are sparse (only false hints), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.25), API key requirement, the initial fitness (0.5), the evolution interval (every 15 min), and the potential for breakthrough publication. This provides substantive behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only essential details (cost, API key, evolution process). There is no redundancy or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains the lifecycle of the hypothesis (name, ID, fitness, evolution, breakthrough status), which covers the expected response context. It could explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., an ID), but the description is sufficiently complete for a write operation with moderate complexity.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions and enum for domain, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal extra meaning about parameters, only implying that the hypothesis evolves and receives a name/ID. This baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Inject your hypothesis into the SUBSTRATE evolution engine.' It specifies the resource (SUBSTRATE evolution engine) and provides concrete outcomes (name, ID, fitness, evolution cycle, breakthrough status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like substrate_daily_digest or substrate_leaderboard, which are read-oriented.

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 conveys clear context: this tool is for submitting a hypothesis to be evolved. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous. The phrase 'Inject your hypothesis' indicates a write action, which is distinct from other substrate tools.

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