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

The description discloses the full judgment state machine: supports→supported, first challenge→challenged, repeat challenge→invalidated, terminal invalidated, and fail-open behavior on judge infra failures. This goes well beyond the bare annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false) and tells the agent about destructive/irreversible terminal state changes and error semantics.

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?

Three compact sentences, each carrying essential information: action, state transitions, and failure behavior. No filler words or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 two-parameter tool with complex side effects, the description explains the complete state-transition behavior and failure mode. It does not state the response/return shape, but with no output schema and clear state-change semantics this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description references 'text evidence' and 'assumption' but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's UUID and text descriptions. No compensation is needed because schema 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?

The description names a specific action ('attach text evidence to an assumption and judge it') and a concrete resource, and the judge/status-transition behavior distinguishes it from sibling tools like goal-add-evidence-text and goal-attach-evidence. The state machine is described precisely, so an agent knows exactly what this 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?

The description implies the primary use case (adding text evidence to an assumption with automatic evaluation) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools such as goal-add-evidence-text or goal-attach-evidence, nor does it give exclusions. There is no 'when not to use' guidance; the usage context must be inferred.

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