submit_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the action claims escrowed payment, but does not explain whether the submission is final, whether payment is released immediately, whether resubmission is possible, or what consequences follow for the escrow.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the action, its required context, and its purpose.

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 financially significant mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks critical context: what happens after submission, what response or error states to expect, and whether the action is one-time or reversible. The agent is left guessing about the outcome of a money-related operation.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds semantic value by framing task_id as an 'assigned task' and result as 'completed work payload.' This helps the agent understand the expected relationship and state of the parameters beyond the bare schema labels.

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, 'submit', with a clear resource, 'completed work payload', and states the goal, 'claim escrowed AIC payment.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like accept_task, approve_task, and rate_worker, which serve different workflow stages.

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 for when to use the tool: after completing an assigned task and when claiming payment. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow stage is evident from the wording, so it is more than merely implied.

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