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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it defines the success receipt (stored: true plus jobId) and warns that HTTP 200 with stored: false means nothing was stored and must not be followed by a 'completed' status. That failure-mode disclosure is real value beyond the annotations, though auth/prerequisites are unmentioned.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, then the success and failure semantics. No filler, though the success/failure conditions could be slightly tighter.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and a nested evidence object, the description covers action, payload, return receipt, and the critical failure interpretation, which is the important missing piece an agent would otherwise get wrong. It remains thin on parameter-level detail and sibling disambiguation, but is otherwise 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 0% and the schema only types the nested evidence object as generic 'object', so the description meaningfully clarifies the bundle's fields (device ID, execution timestamp, result payload, event timeline). It still leaves jobId and kernelId unexplained, so it compensates only partially for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('pushes evidence bundle') and describes the payload contents, so an agent understands what is being transmitted. However, it never distinguishes this tool from nearby siblings like commit_evidence, submit_evidence_hash, or register_job_evidence_ip, leaving the agent to guess which evidence-writing path applies.

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 phrase 'from a completed job execution' implies the context (a finished job's evidence must be pushed), which is genuine if minimal guidance. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative among the many evidence-related siblings, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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