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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it delivers substantial disclosure: verification cannot be influenced by self-promotion, objective precedence is enumerated, 'otherwise unknown, never silent 0.0', and failures are 'structured, never bare'. It also explains what determinative fields are returned, so an agent understands the behavioral contract beyond the bare operation name.

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 dense but every sentence adds meaningful information, from server-side evaluation to the precedence chain to the exact return fields. The precedence rule is formatted as a clear arrow chain, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not repeat return structure; it still names details.objective_source and details.independently_verified for clarity. It explains failure behavior and the objective computation chain well, though it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or describe authentication requirements. Overall it is complete enough for a verification tool.

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, and it does for the non-obvious parameters: task_structure_id's source and purpose, and trust_trace_objective's exact effect on objective precedence. strategy_id, task_instance, and execution_trace are left mostly to inference from their names and context, so it does not fully cover all 5 parameters.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Run objective deterministic verification on a strategy.' It goes on to clarify that this is server-side verification ('Verification is evaluated server-side') and that it is distinct from tasks like proposing or identifying strategies, which appear among the siblings. This gives an agent a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 operational guidance: pass task_structure_id from cognitive.identify_task so constraints are recomputed from registered descriptors, and set trust_trace_objective only when trace claims should be trusted. It implies when to use this tool (when objective, non-self-promoting verification is needed) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling verification or other alternative tools.

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