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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description shoulders the behavioral burden and does add real value: it discloses the resulting Agreement state, that rules/receipts/Seeds mirror the HTTP endpoint, and the important caveat that 'Stake never auto-converts to entry'. It stops short of permissions, replay/duplicate behavior, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the state outcome leads and the caveat closes. Slightly penalized only for leaning on an external HTTP endpoint as a behavioral reference rather than restating it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and params are fully covered by the schema. For a mutation tool with no safety annotations the description covers the key state semantics but leaves permission and idempotency/replay expectations unstated.

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 100% and all 8 params are self-documented (including the post:/slot:/mission: ref formats the description echoes). The description adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('File an entry intent... against a post, slot or mission') and defines the resulting state ('an Agreement in pending, or accepted in open mode'). The creation action is cleanly separable from the accept/reject/withdraw lifecycle siblings without opening any schema.

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 context by naming valid targets (post, slot, mission) and tying behavior to POST /api/work-entry, but never states when to prefer this over entry.withdraw/entry.accept or any prerequisite (e.g., must be a participant). Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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