Dmitry Voluntary Support

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — the appeal is 'public, voluntary' and has 'verification limits' — but says nothing about how the limits manifest, whether the content is stable, or any rate/pagination behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument read, though the trailing clause listing content types is slightly interpretive rather than precise.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does roughly sketch the return contents (appeal text, verification limits, reply options). For a zero-param read whose safety profile is covered by annotations, that is close to sufficient.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. There is no argument semantics for the description to clarify.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('Dmitry's public, voluntary personal appeal'), and even enumerates what the content covers (verification limits, reply options). It is clear but does not differentiate itself from siblings like submit_offer or get_receipt.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The phrase 'reply options' hints that replying involves a separate action, but the description never routes the agent to submit_offer or state a triggering condition.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: 'never sends funds' and 'unsigned transfer instructions' clarify that even the amount path produces non-executing output, and 'owner-activated' hints the address may not exist until the owner enables it. It stops short of describing failure modes or output format.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the no-funds guarantee immediately after. Every clause contributes new information, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and readOnlyHint=true, the description covers what is returned (address, or unsigned transfer instructions) and the critical safety boundary. Only minor gaps remain around when the address is unavailable and how the amount is denominated.

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%, so the description carries the burden for the single optional 'amount' parameter. It explains the functional effect (returns unsigned transfer instructions instead of just the address), which is the most important semantic, but it omits units/denomination, rounding, and the meaning of the pattern constraints already encoded in the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read the owner-activated USDC receiving address on Base') plus the network, so the operation is unambiguous at a glance. Adding that an optional amount yields 'unsigned transfer instructions' and that it 'never sends funds' further pins down exactly what the tool does versus a generic payment tool.

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?

It implies two usage modes: call with no argument to get the address, or with an amount to get transfer instructions. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives among siblings like submit_offer. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds a genuinely useful caveat beyond the annotation — that no compensation is promised — but says nothing about result count, filtering, ordering, or what a "bounded" task actually is.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is tight, though the second sentence's disclaimer sits where a usage cue would have been more valuable.

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 no-parameter read with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves the agent guessing about what tasks are returned and how this call fits alongside submit_offer. The absence of an output schema means return content should at least be hinted at.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is missing.

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?

"Read ... contribution tasks" gives a verb and a resource, but the qualifiers "bounded, optional" are cryptic and never explained. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like submit_offer or get_receipt, which an agent might reasonably confuse when deciding what to fetch.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, what triggers it, or which sibling to prefer for related data (e.g. submit_offer for acting on a task). The agent must infer the context entirely.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe, non-mutating read, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the receipt token is private and originates from submit_offer, but discloses nothing about possible status values, retry behavior, or error cases for an invalid token.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key dependency (submit_offer) is stated immediately. It is efficient but arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema and two fully undocumented required parameters, the description covers the basic workflow dependency but leaves the return payload and failure modes unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it does name their provenance (ID and private receipt token from submit_offer) and implies the token is sensitive. It still gives no format, length, or validity guidance beyond that origin.

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 (check) and resource (acknowledgement status), and ties itself to the submit_offer workflow. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_appeal or get_open_tasks, though it does not explicitly say what it is not.

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 precondition: use it with the ID and private receipt token returned by submit_offer, which routes the agent correctly after submission. It stops short of stating exclusions or what to do if the status is not yet acknowledged.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it is voluntary, no money moves, and nothing is auto-executed pending human review. This meaningfully clarifies the side effects of the call.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the caveats follow. It is efficiently sized, though it spends its budget on caveats rather than on the under-documented parameters.

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 six-parameter submission tool with two enums, low schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it explains the intended effect but never covers parameter usage, what the enum values mean, or what the caller gets back after review.

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 only 17%, so the schema leaves most of the six parameters (message, task_id, category, is_test, agent_name) undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what to write into these fields.

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: storing a voluntary proposal in a named private inbox. An agent can distinguish this write-style submission from the read-oriented get_* siblings (get_appeal, get_receipt, etc.), though it never names them explicitly.

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 implies a submission-for-review scenario but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool. Nothing tells the agent which sibling to pick or what preconditions apply before submitting.

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