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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry behavioral weight. It notes the tool 'does not seal a ruling and does not choose a disposition,' clarifying scope, and states admission prerequisites. However, it doesn't describe what filing does to the proceeding, whether it's reversible, or rate limits.

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 admission requirement, then states the action, then exclusions. Slightly jargon-heavy ('O-VESTED', 'constituted magistrate') but every sentence contributes.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only one annotation, the description covers prerequisites and some exclusions but leaves gaps: what happens on success, what the proceeding state looks like after filing, and how it differs from related submission tools.

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 the schema documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is complete.

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 clear verb ('file') and resource ('argument or counterargument on an open O-VESTED proceeding'), which is specific. It distinguishes from siblings loosely by naming 'magistrate_execute' is not this, but doesn't cleanly contrast with submit_evidence or raise_challenge.

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 a gating condition '[NEEDS ADMISSION: enroll, then atlas.bind_actor]' and an exclusion ('The constituted magistrate does not file. One actor does not file both.'), but these are phrased as cryptic rules rather than explicit when-to-use guidance against alternatives like raise_challenge.

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