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

Annotations already carry the read-only safety profile, so the description earns credit for what it adds beyond them: the verdict is minted externally by the gate harness, this tool performs no computation of its own, and dev dry runs are labelled and must not be treated as acceptance evidence. That provenance/trust caveat is genuinely non-obvious behavioral context not found in 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the provenance caveat. Every sentence carries weight, though 'minted outside the app by the gate harness' is slightly ornate phrasing where plainer wording would serve an agent just as well.

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 usefully compensates by describing the return shape (per-element verdict plus scalar measurements) and flags the trust distinction between dry-run and acceptance verdicts. It is largely complete for a read-only lookup; only the sibling routing and verdict-availability behavior are left implicit.

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%, including verdictId's default resolution to the protected acceptance verdict, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the structural hint that the result is per-element with scalar measurements; it offers no extra detail on projectId, jobId, or customerId scoping.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it returns 'one frozen-gate verdict, element by element, with each element's own scalar measurements,' which is a concrete deliverable an agent can recognize. It implicitly separates itself from the write-side sibling record_gate_result by stating 'this only reads what was recorded,' but it never names a sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 the retrieval context (reading an already-minted verdict) but never states when to reach for this tool versus get_verification_evidence, get_adjudication_queue, or record_gate_result. The dry-run caveat ('never acceptance evidence and is labelled as such') is useful context but is a data caveat, not a when-to-use rule.

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