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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful context ('closes with the rubric' implies a terminal state transition, and 'party or admin' signals who can invoke it), but it never states that the verdict is irreversible or what the destructive effect actually is.

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?

Front-loads the WHEN condition and alternative, then gives a concrete call example. Slightly wasteful in repeating the tool name at the start, but otherwise tight and well-ordered.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers when to use and the key alternative; only the irreversibility of closing a claim is left implicit for a destructive action.

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 100%, so both parameters (key, claim_id) are fully documented in the schema. The example illustrates claim_id usage but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('judge a ready claim') and explicitly distinguishes itself from court_argue ('this closes with the rubric'). An agent can tell it apart from the sibling without opening schemas, though the jargon ('rubric') adds slight ambiguity.

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?

Gives an explicit WHEN condition ('judge a ready claim (party or admin)') and names the alternative court_argue with the differentiator ('this closes with the rubric'). No explicit when-not, but the routing signal is strong.

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