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

The description reveals key behaviors: deterministic scoring, cost mechanics (x402 or free-tier quota), and that it returns one of three concrete decisions rather than executing the action. Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints, and the description adds cost and determinism context without contradiction.

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 description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and cost. Every phrase adds value (deterministic, returns next call, cost model), with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 16 parameters and an output schema, the description conveys the core function and decision outcome well. It does not explicitly mention the required 'command' parameter or how the gate is invoked, but the schema covers that. Slight lack of explicit input guidance keeps it from a 5.

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 100% for all 16 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, making the baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool is a quick safety gate that deterministically scores an action and returns the exact next call (proceed, request DestructGuard evidence, or run full workflow). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like action_safety_run and score_destructguard_command.

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 to use: as a cheap ($0.01) preflight before more expensive or comprehensive workflows, explicitly mentioning the alternative next steps. However, it does not name sibling tools or give explicit 'use this when' / 'use that instead' exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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