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

Annotations only declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds a valuable behavioral side-effect: it 'may auto-create a bounty if enough demand accumulates,' which the agent cannot infer from annotations alone. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the side-effect caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the auto-bounty side-effect but says nothing about what the caller receives (e.g. confirmation, demand ID, or threshold status). Adequate but with a clear gap around outcomes and the accumulation threshold.

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 100% with 6 well-described parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. how assuranceTier or estimatedFrequency influence auto-bounty creation), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (signal/submit) and resource (a demand for a capability that doesn't exist), which is a distinct concept from create_capability or search_capabilities. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 'a capability that doesn't exist on the network yet' gives a clear condition for when this tool applies, implicitly distinguishing it from searching existing capabilities. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, so a 4 rather than 5.

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