justhandled_completion_evidence_receipt_auditor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.05 USDC on Base mainnet) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, what the return value looks like, or any side effects. This is a significant gap.

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 short, efficient sentences. The first delivers the purpose, the second adds cost information. No redundant or filler language.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns or any prerequisites. It omits return behavior (e.g., a report or pass/fail) but the tool's simplicity and clear purpose make it minimally viable.

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 0% description coverage for the 'outcomes' parameter. The description adds context by mentioning the statuses (completion, partial, blocked) and the fields to check (evidence, remaining-work), which helps interpret the parameter. However, it does not fully explain the validation logic or exact expected structure beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('check') and resource ('completion, partial, and blocked outcome records'), and specifies what is checked (evidence and remaining-work details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that check other types of data.

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 usage for verifying outcome records based on status, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or provide alternatives among siblings. This is acceptable but not explicit.

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