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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: 'spends one solve' flags a resource cost, and 'show named dissent' signals the return shape. It stops short of explaining reversal, permissions, or repeat-call behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded. The terse 'Show named dissent; spends one solve' fragment is a little clipped but earns its place by conveying output and cost.

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?

With no output schema, the description should shoulder more return-value explanation; 'show named dissent' gives partial coverage and 'spends one solve' covers cost. Parameter and output details are nonetheless thin for a two-required-parameter, non-idempotent 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 carries the burden of explaining the two parameters. It identifies them conceptually ('a question', 'the candidate'), which is the minimum. But it adds no detail on length limits, format, or content expectations beyond the schema's type constraints.

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: independently answer a question and compare a candidate against deterministic panel agreement. Combined with the title 'Verify Another AI Answer,' the core function is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings like ecca_refine, ecca_synthesize, or ecca_bts_divergence.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives. 'Verify another AI answer' implies the context, but with ten ecca_* siblings an agent gets no signal on when this beats refine, research, or synthesize. 'Spends one solve' hints at a cost tradeoff but not a usage condition.

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