athena_transport_rgo_to_reward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states two non-obvious behaviors: the tool does not alter AOR authority and it emits a double-count guard if DeltaJ names the same outcome. However, it doesn't cover persistence, return values, or failure modes.

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 sentences with no filler, starting with the main action verb. The first sentence states the core behavior and the second adds a conditional guard, making every sentence informative.

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 7-parameter transport tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks critical details: the reward-observation packet's structure, persistence behavior, when to set actor/delta_outcome_ref, and the exact nature of the double-count guard. It needs more to be fully actionable for an agent.

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 compensate. It adds meaning to observed_rgo, witness_ref, and delta_j (via the double-count guard), and references outcome_ref. However, actor, persist, and delta_outcome_ref are not explained, leaving gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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 operation—carrying a witnessed RGO outcome into a reward-observation packet—and adds a key qualifier (no AOR authority change) that distinguishes it from likely sibling transport tools. However, 'carry' is somewhat abstract and the description doesn't explicitly compare to adjacent transport tools.

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 when to use this tool via 'without automatically changing...' but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites or relationships to other transport tools, though the qualifier provides some contextual direction.

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