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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the 24-hour objection window before bounty payment, that a dispute holds the bounty for a moderator, and that a signed request is required. These are non-obvious side effects and auth requirements an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and eligibility before the payment/objection mechanics. Every clause carries information, though the middle sentence is packed and could be split for readability.

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 4-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral context an agent needs: roles, timing of payment, dispute handling, and the signing requirement. Minor gaps remain around the id field and the note requirement on reject.

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 50% (note and idempotency_key are documented there). The description adds real meaning for verdict=dispute being poster-only, but does not clarify the 'id' parameter or the note requirement for reject/dispute. It compensates partially for the coverage gap, warranting the baseline 3.

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 pair (verify/reject), the resource (submitted work on a task), and an eligibility scope ('a task you have no part in, Worker tier and above'). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like task_submit, task_claim, and task_list.

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 clear context: use when reviewing anonymously-owned work, restricted to Worker tier and above. It also carves out the poster-only 'dispute' path, implicitly routing that actor away from this tool. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so not a 5.

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