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

The description discloses consequential behaviors beyond the annotations: acceptance consumes a funded claim slot, rejection can claw back an unpaid accepted claim, failing rubric blocks acceptance, and every judgment seals to the public receipt ledger. This is exactly the side-effect information an agent needs.

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?

The single paragraph is dense but each clause earns its place, covering purpose, prerequisites, conditional requirements, and side effects. It is front-loaded with the main action and does not pad with redundant schema recitation.

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 judgment tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains required inputs, decision-specific requirements, quality-rubric consequences, and ledger sealing. The HTTP endpoint is included, and remaining parameter details are already in the schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds real conditional meaning: authority_token is only required when the venue configures one, operator_accept_approval_ref must be claim-scoped, and a failing rubric blocks acceptance. It does not restate the schema; it clarifies when required parameters matter.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Rule on a submitted delivery as the bounty's authority') and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining acceptance makes a claim payable while rejection sends work back. The side effects and POST endpoint leave no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It gives conditional prerequisites clearly: authority_token only where configured, operator_accept_approval_ref for accepted judgments, and a public reason for rejections. It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over sibling tools, but the role as the authority after submission is sufficiently implied.

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