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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial unstructurable context: the 30-day expiry, registry signature, provenance ('every line traceable to a record'), provenance of unverifiable items, and the deliberate refusal to produce a global score. The opening 'Read-only.' is redundant with readOnlyHint, and it never says whether the subject human is notified or must consent, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

One dense but well-ordered block: safety/scope first, then the three output layers, then issuance terms. Every clause carries information (expiry, signature, traceability, no-global-score), though the em-dash-heavy, all-caps-emphasis style costs some readability.

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 no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the returned letter's contents and epistemics, which it does well. Gaps are failure modes and consent: it doesn't say what happens with an unknown handle, an under-specified task, or whether the human on the other side is prompted.

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 50% (only 'task' is documented) and there are no enums. The description does add real meaning for 'task' — it is the scoping input that determines which judgment is rendered, not a generic label — and 'owner's REPLY' hints at the handle's role, but the handle parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 name/title plus description make it clear this produces a task-scoped verification letter about a human, and the three-layer breakdown (facts, judgment, reply) tells the agent exactly what the artifact is. It implicitly distinguishes itself from a global-scoring sibling via 'Never a global score; you decide, this informs' but never names trust_lookup or search_human, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the task-scoping constraint ('a JUDGMENT for this task only', 'for one specific task') signals this is used when vetting a human for a concrete engagement, and 'Issued on request' implies on-demand invocation. However, with 15 siblings including trust_lookup, search_human and ask_human, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative named.

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