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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side effect (the original author's reputation increases) plus the self-verification restriction and the token requirement. It omits idempotency, reversibility, what happens if the claim was already verified, and failure behavior, which are material for an unannotated mutation tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the use case and benefit before the constraint and the token instruction, with essentially no filler. The rhetorical opening is slightly indirect for a machine reader but costs almost nothing in 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?

For a simple action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the effect and the main precondition, which is the minimum an agent needs. It still leaves the return value, error cases, and the role of the optional qy parameter unexplained, so it is adequate rather than 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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description only adds 'Pass qy_token' (redundant with the required field) and an id-lookup pointer to query_experience; it adds no format or edge-case meaning for qy or id.

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 conveys both the action (crediting the original author of an adopted fix) and its effect (their reputation rises), and it parenthetically points to query_experience as the source of the record id, which links it to a sibling. It never uses the words 'verify' or 'claim' from the tool name, so the mapping between name and behavior requires a small inference, but the resource is identifiable.

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 gives a clear triggering condition ('Adopted someone's fix? Credit them back') and an explicit exclusion ('Cannot verify your own'), which is more than most definitions offer. It does not, however, compare itself to siblings such as share_pitfall or query_trust, so the agent must infer where credit-giving sits relative to those tools.

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