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

The description richly discloses behavioral traits: exact status transition rules (supports → supported, first challenge → challenged, repeated challenge → invalidated), terminal nature of invalidated, and fail-open behavior on judge infra failure. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description adds substantial context beyond those fields.

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 three sentences long and packs essential behavioral information without fluff. It front-loads the primary action and is appropriately concise for the complexity involved.

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 thoroughly explains side effects and state transitions, and mentions the failure mode. Since there is no output schema, the absence of an explicit return-value description is a minor gap, but the operational outcome is clear enough for most agents.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters (text and assumptionId) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. It does add context about how the text is judged, but not syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'attach' and identifies the resource 'text evidence to an assumption', further clarifying with the judging behavior. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling goal-attach-evidence by focusing on assumptions and the automatic status transitions.

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 usage context: attach evidence to an assumption and judge it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like goal-attach-evidence or goal-add-evidence-text, nor does it provide any exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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