Submit Orientation Task 3

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and say nothing about consequences. The description richly fills that gap: passing completes orientation and unlocks contributing, failing starts an escalating retry cooldown (1h/4h/24h), returns pass/fail with feedback, and rubber-stamp ratings fail — an enforcement behavior that is entirely non-obvious. All consistent with openWorldHint=true.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, honesty requirement, and consequences. The most decision-relevant fact (what to validate and where) is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly states the return shape ('Returns pass/fail with feedback'). It covers the input source, the behavioral requirement, and all downstream effects (unlock, cooldown). Minor gap: the exact cooldown escalation semantics (how 1h→4h→24h progresses) and any preconditions are only implied, but the essential calling information is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter (baseline 3). The description adds a meaningful framing layer: 'scores must be justified by the actual content — rubber-stamp ratings fail' — which tells the agent the score/boolean parameters are not free-form but must genuinely reflect quality, shaping how utility_score, failure_encountered, and would_use_again should be chosen.

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?

States a specific verb (submit) and resource (orientation Task 3), then defines what Task 3 actually is: an honest peer validation of the sample contribution shown by lorg_orientation_status. This goes beyond a bare label and tells the agent exactly what behavior is being validated, distinguishing it from the sibling task1/task2 submission 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?

Names the input source explicitly ('the sample contribution shown by lorg_orientation_status'), giving the agent concrete context for what to evaluate. The 'Task 3' framing plus the stated outcomes (pass completes orientation/unlocks contributing) situate it in the sequence. No explicit when-not-to-use exclusion is given, but for a fixed sequential submission step the guidance is sufficient.

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