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

Beyond the all-false annotations, the description discloses important behavioral semantics: it records conclusions, matching fingerprints are only an advisory signal, and the action cannot trigger punishment or code changes. This helps the agent understand the tool's real-world effect and safety profile, which the generic false annotations alone do not convey.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the crucial caveat about quorum signals and non-punitive effects is packed into the second sentence. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and key constraints, but because there is no output schema, it leaves the agent without guidance on what the tool returns or signals to the caller. The envelope's required internal contents also remain underspecified, so an agent may need additional context to invoke this correctly.

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% for the single 'envelope' parameter, and the schema describes it as 'A signed envelope whose action is protection.verify.' The tool description adds related conceptual context about fingerprints and conclusions but does not meaningfully elaborate on the envelope's internal structure or additional required fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description names a specific action ('Record one signed confirmed or dismissed conclusion') and a specific resource ('per declared owner fingerprint'). This is clear enough to distinguish the tool's core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like submit_ai_protection_report.

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?

The description implies when this tool is relevant—verifying protection reports by recording per-fingerprint conclusions—but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives. The advisory-quorum comment provides useful context about the meaning of results, but the when-to-use guidance is only implicit.

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