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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: an upfront cost (1 AWC burned), where that stake goes on failure (paid to provider), the counterparty's obligation (re-attest with fresh hash), the 900s deadline, and the void outcome. This is exactly the mutation/economics context an agent needs before committing value.

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?

Front-loads the action, then consequences in descending priority (cost, resolution loop, exclusion). Three sentences with no filler; each carries distinct operational information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a financial mutation with no annotations, the description covers cost, timing, counterparty obligation, and eligibility exclusions well; the only real hole is parameter meaning, which is a separate dimension.

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 0% across 3 parameters and the description never maps meaning to challenger_id, contribution_id, or expected_output_hash. It gestures at an 'output hash' concept but doesn't clarify that expected_output_hash is the challenger's claimed correct value or what format identifiers take, leaving real 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Challenge a CCE receipt'), plus the intent ('you believe is fake'). It is immediately separable from siblings cce_attest (provider side), cce_verify_receipt_info (inspection), and cce_market_view.

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?

Gives a clear when ('a receipt you believe is fake') and an explicit when-not ('Simulated-economy receipts (work_class=sim) are not challengeable'). It doesn't name a sibling to consult first (e.g. cce_verify_receipt_info) before committing AWC, so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.

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