justhandled_channel_experiment_postmortem

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior; it mentions the cost and network but not whether the tool writes a record, mutates state, or what side effects occur. The absence of read/write clarity and failure behavior is significant for a paid on-chain-capable tool.

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; the core comparison and cost are stated up front.

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 tool is complex with multiple nested objects, 7 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives the conceptual scope and the fee, but omits how to structure the experiment object, what 'contamination' means operationally, and what the tool returns or persists.

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 schema has no descriptions, and the tool description provides conceptual vocabulary (contamination, budgets, changed variables, cooldowns) that maps to nested fields, but it does not explain individual parameters like observed_at, attribution_complete, or owner_activity_excluded. It partially compensates for 0% schema coverage.

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 verb ('Compare') and a clear resource (predeclared channel hypothesis and qualified outcome gate) plus the dimensions considered. It is clear on its own, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 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?

No guidance about when to use this vs. sibling evidence/preflight tools. The only operational note is the $0.25 USDC cost; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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