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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions 'enforce deontological vetoes' which suggests a potentially blocking or evaluative outcome, but it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, whether changes are reversible, or what is returned. The description gives only a hint of behavior without detail.

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 that is front-loaded with the domain ('Normative ethics & fairness') and efficiently lists three distinct functions. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain the input parameters, which are critical for correct invocation. With three optional and undocumented parameters, an agent cannot determine what to pass. The description also omits any mention of output format or behavioral side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 0% and the description makes no reference to any of the three parameters (options, stakeholder_payoffs, proposed_action_or_plan). An agent receives no guidance on what these fields should contain, how they relate to the tool's function, or how to format them. The description fails entirely to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states specific actions (enforce deontological vetoes, evaluate Rawlsian vs Utilitarian welfare, arbitrate moral dilemmas) on a clear resource (normative ethics & fairness). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_strategy by focusing on ethical judgment rather than strategic verification.

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 clearly implies use for ethical evaluation and moral dilemmas, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. It lacks an explicit exclusion clause but provides sufficient context for an agent to infer its appropriate domain.

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