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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool decides and records only, never persists, and never replaces signature/consent checks. It also details internal logic for CONFIRMED vs. quarantine. It doesn't cover rate limits or side effects beyond recording, but it's rich for a no-annotation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then the rule and conditions. It is dense but every sentence earns its place. Slightly verbose with parentheses, but efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 params, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential decision logic and caveats. It could mention the nine-field record's purpose or error handling, but it's largely complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 70%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'content' is scanned for RED/FLOOR moral constraints and that 'witness' must differ from 'author'. However, it doesn't clarify parameters like 'artifact', 'kind_hint', 'contradicts', 'authority_in', 'wait_satisfied', or 'in_kind_checked'. Baseline 3 is 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Route ONE proposed state-change through the kernel and get back the verdict (REJECT / QUARANTINE / CONFIRMED) plus the nine-field record.' This is clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like candidate_commit or verify. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, so it falls short of a 5.

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 says 'so you can DISCERN before you write', implying when to use it (pre-write discernment). It also clarifies what CONFIRMED requires: a real verification that HELD, an independent witness, and the wait. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools like candidate_commit or consent_check, so it's not a full 5.

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