register_nattswap_reward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'credit NDAT rewards' but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., duplicate hash handling, authentication requirements, possible errors).

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 only 11 words, single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Register'. No unnecessary information, 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?

The description omits important context: what the tool returns (e.g., success message, receipt), error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., swap must be completed, hash uniqueness), and any side effects. For a mutation tool with no output schema, this is insufficient.

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?

Both parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Register'), the resource ('completed NattSwap transaction hash'), and the purpose ('to credit NDAT rewards'). It distinguishes from siblings like swap_via_nattswap (which performs the swap) and claim_ndat (which claims rewards), making it 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 implies the tool is used after a swap is completed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., swap_via_nattswap, claim_ndat) or provide any conditions for use.

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