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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns the receipt verbatim, errors included, and warns about payload expiry. It also clarifies that the signature is over locally signed bytes from prepare_work_entry, which is not evident from the schema or annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and parameters, followed by a concise usage note. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the 4-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and the sibling context (especially prepare_work_entry), the description is complete. It covers the workflow, parameter roles, timing, and return behavior (receipt verbatim), while relying on the output schema for detailed return structure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming and contextualizing all four parameters: payload_id, public key, signature, and proof-of-work nonce. It explains their role in the workflow, though it does not detail format constraints (e.g., hex encoding) beyond what parameter names imply.

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 clearly defines the tool's function: submitting a locally signed work entry with specific parameters (payload_id, public key, signature, pow nonce) and returning the venue's receipt verbatim. It distinguishes from the sibling prepare_work_entry by explicitly referencing signing bytes from that tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit timing guidance: use immediately after signing the bytes from prepare_work_entry and before payload expiration. It gives a clear workflow context but does not enumerate alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving room for a slightly higher score.

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