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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining the tool's classification outcomes and warns against inflating PR/deploy/HTTP 200/self-test results, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences in English plus one in Japanese, all front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence provides purpose or context, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description gives clear purpose and timing but lacks guidance on how to structure inputs like intent_contract vs. observed_outcome. It is minimally complete but leaves significant gaps for a complex tool.

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 description coverage is only 14%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It only hints at evidence types (PR, deploy, HTTP 200) in Japanese but does not map them to schema fields. The required 'claim' parameter has a schema description, but the overall tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning.

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 the tool's function: to classify evidence as a verified result, progress, insufficient evidence, or rejected test/internal evidence. It uses specific verbs like 'Call this before reporting success' and 'audit', distinctly distinguishing it from siblings like get_one_minute_support.

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 explicitly instructs when to use: 'before reporting success, closing a task, or claiming ROI.' This provides clear context and timing. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, though the sibling tools are unrelated, so no exclusion is needed.

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