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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format: per-step verdict, flagged errors, suggested corrections, and mentions a certification ('Approved chains receive a Taste content certificate on-chain'). It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or any side effects, but the nature of verification suggests read-only.

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 sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, usage guidance, and return value. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the primary function.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage conditions, return values, and an important behavioral note (certification). For a tool with only two parameters and a described return (output schema exists), this is complete. No obvious gaps.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'context' is optional and its purpose, and it describes the structure of chain steps (step, reasoning, output, toolUsed). This is helpful but does not significantly exceed what the schema provides.

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: 'Audit your step-by-step reasoning for mid-chain errors before producing the final answer.' It specifies the resource (reasoning chain) and action (audit), and distinguishes from siblings by noting that it catches errors that final-output checks miss.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Call when stakes are high and your chain has 3+ steps.' It also explains why it's preferable to alternatives: 'humans catch wrong intermediate steps that final-output checks miss (right-looking answers built on broken intermediate logic).'

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