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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that it never confirms, produces no verdict or seal, generates nothing, holds back private/framing context, and routes crises to humans. This goes beyond what structured fields would convey, giving the agent a clear safety profile without any annotation support.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value (outputs, routing, twin relationship, crisis handling). Some metaphorical language ('laid open', 'twin of the verify door') is stylistic but not wasteful. Slightly long but earns its length for the breadth of information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, which it does thoroughly: 'get back what KIND it is, the necessary claim reduced..., the structured (domain, spec)..., and where it routes.' It also explains the non-action nature and gives the follow-up instruction to use verify. This is complete for an agent to understand the tool's role and integration.

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% (only parameter 'text' with description 'anything — a claim, a question, or what is on your mind'). The description says 'Bring a claim, a question, or a messy statement' which essentially repeats the schema's meaning. No additional semantics are added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'Discern what to do with anything WITHOUT doing it' — a proposal-only analysis tool. It distinguishes itself from its twin 'verify' by specifying that it proposes and never confirms, and it describes concrete outputs (kind, reduced claim, domain/spec, routing). This is a specific verb+resource definition that differentiates from siblings.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'hand the returned `claims` to `verify` to dispose' tells the agent exactly the next step. It also notes a key exception: 'Crisis is discerned first and routed to real people, never the gate.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool and how it relates to verify, covering both when and when-not to use.

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