Submit a Proof Request (Seeker side)

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the async workflow (Matchmaker assigns when capacity is free) and the return type (request id). However, it does not mention that this is a mutating operation, potential failure modes, or cancellation 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. There is 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?

For a simple tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and high-level workflow. However, it omits side-effect details (e.g., persistence, irreversibility) and error conditions, leaving some gaps in behavioral coverage.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter (system, sizeUnits, deadlineTicks). The description adds no extra information about parameter meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('submits') with a clear resource ('Proof Request to the market'), and specifies the Seeker side. It distinguishes itself by noting it returns a request id for polling, which differentiates it from sibling tools like poll_proof.

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 provides clear context: a Seeker submits when acting as a Seeker, and the returned id is meant for polling. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like simulate_coordination or compose_workflow, but the Seeker-side framing implies appropriate use.

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