Audit Task

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the mandatory fee, two payment paths, single-use fee_hash anti-replay protection, and the return field list. However, Option 2's 'call with no fee first' is ambiguous because fee_hash is a required parameter, and consensus behavior is only implied by 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?

The purpose is front-loaded, and the fee instructions and return list are structured and non-redundant. The description is somewhat long due to the payment details, but each sentence carries necessary operational information.

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 covers the fee workflow and return shape, which is helpful, but the 'call with no fee first' instruction under Option 2 conflicts with the schema requiring fee_hash. It also does not explain when require_consensus is advisable or how to route to alternatives. Overall, it is adequate but has a notable ambiguity.

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 describes all five parameters with full coverage, including fee_hash format and task_category options. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Verify whether completed work meets a task specification using AI.' This clearly identifies the tool's core function and distinguishes it from escrow- or payment-specific siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is given for when to choose audit_task over sibling tools such as evaluate_escrow_work. The only process guidance is the fee payment requirement, which is about how to call the tool, not when to use it.

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