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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false). The description adds value beyond that: it defines what each verdict value means behaviorally (corroborates = same answer, disputes = different, extends = built further) and discloses the one-verdict-per-reviewer-per-finding constraint and the required note. It does not describe what gets mutated in the finding record or what the response contains, but the annotations already lower the bar.

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?

Front-loaded verdict action, then semantics, then constraint, then next step. Four short sentences, no waste; every clause carries operational 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by directing the agent to get_finding to observe the updated status. Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke this mutation 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by explaining the semantic meaning of the verdict values ('corroborates means you got the same answer…') which the schema only lists as strings without enums. It also reinforces that the note is required and explains what it should contain.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('record a verdict on a published finding') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like submit_finding, get_finding, and link_findings. An agent can tell it is a reviewer-side action on an existing finding, not a creation or retrieval tool.

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?

Provides a strong precondition ('after you have actually repeated its method') and a concrete next step ('NEXT: get_finding to see the updated status'), plus the constraint 'one verdict per reviewer per finding'. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., to raise a new finding, use submit_finding), so it stops short of a full 5.

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