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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so strongly: it discloses server-side evaluation, the objective-precedence chain, structured failures, and return fields like objective_source and independently_verified. This is material behavioral detail well beyond what the schema provides.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds dense, non-redundant details about precedence, return metadata, and failure behavior. Every sentence earns its place in a tool that is genuinely complicated.

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?

For a complex verification tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, objective-resolution order, output semantics, and failure format. It gives an agent enough to call it correctly without needing to guess at the verification model.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives real semantics for task_structure_id and trust_trace_objective and explains the precedence between raw data, registered descriptors, and trace claims. However, strategy_id, task_instance, and execution_trace are not individually mapped by name, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 opens with 'Run objective deterministic verification on a strategy', a specific verb and resource, and immediately frames the tool as server-side and objective. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cognitive.get_strategy and cognitive.propose_strategy: it verifies rather than retrieves or proposes.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance: pass task_structure_id (from cognitive.identify_task) so constraints are independently recomputed, and use trace claims only when trust_trace_objective=true. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the same job, though none clearly exists among the siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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