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

Annotations declare a non-read, non-destructive write. The description adds real context beyond that: the operation is on-chain, it links physical evidence to the settlement record, and it returns a transaction hash. It still omits reversibility and permission requirements, so not 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the effect, then the return. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 3-required-param write tool with annotations and no output schema, it covers the action, effect, and return value, which is most of what is needed. It omits prerequisites and failure conditions (already-submitted milestone, invalid hash), leaving a gap for a settlement-critical mutation.

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%, so address, milestoneIndex, and evidenceBundleHash are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline.

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?

Specific verb+resource: submits an evidence bundle hash tied to a milestone on-chain. The 'on-chain settlement record' linkage makes the effect concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as commit_evidence or register_job_evidence_ip, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (attach an evidence hash to a milestone's settlement) but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite (e.g., milestone must be active/unfunded), or named alternative among the many evidence-related siblings. Minimum viable guidance only.

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