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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals the theoretical mechanism but does not disclose side effects, state changes, mutation, permission requirements, or what Ulysses pre-commitment actually does operationally. The output schema covers return values, not behavior.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides the distinguishing method. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, with six parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and zero parameter-level documentation, the description leaves audit_action_switch and register_commitment opaque and the option object shapes unspecified. An agent lacks enough context to invoke this tool confidently.

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 0%, and the description does not explain k_hyperbolic, gamma_exponential, audit_action_switch, register_commitment, or the expected structure of the two nested option objects. The reference to hyperbolic vs exponential discounting weakly hints at the numeric parameters, but this is insufficient for correct parameterization.

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 action ('arbitrate') and a specific resource ('short vs long term payoffs'), and names the method: hyperbolic vs exponential discounting plus Ulysses pre-commitment contracts. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like cognitive.compose_strategies or cognitive.resolve_intent.

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 when to use the tool: when there is a tradeoff between immediate and delayed payoffs and commitment is needed. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternative tools.

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