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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuine context beyond that: the verdict is 'minted outside the app by the gate harness', so the data is externally produced and immutable, and dry-run results are explicitly labelled and are not acceptance evidence. That provenance and labelling detail materially affects how an agent should treat the returned values.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then provenance, then the dry-run caveat. Slightly ornamental phrasing ('minted outside the app by the gate harness') but no filler or repetition.

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, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape; it gestures at 'element by element, with each element's own scalar measurements' but does not clarify what an element is or what fields a verdict carries. The dry-run labelling caveat is valuable, but an agent still lacks a clear picture of the response structure.

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 100%, so jobId, projectId, verdictId (including its default-to-protected-acceptance behavior) and the superadmin-only customerId are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given full coverage but earns no extra credit.

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 and resource: it reads 'one frozen-gate verdict, element by element, with each element's own scalar measurements'. It also implicitly separates itself from the write-side sibling record_gate_result by saying it 'only reads what was recorded'. However, it never names or contrasts with the other nearby read tools (get_verification_evidence, get_adjudication_queue, get_review_case), so the boundary is only partly drawn.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing signal is the caveat that a development dry run is never acceptance evidence, which hints at how to interpret results rather than when to call the tool. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from record_gate_result or the other verdict/evidence readers.

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