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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the payment protocol: an unpaid call returns a fresh x402 challenge, the caller must supply X-JEV-API-KEY and a caller-created PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header or payment_signature argument, and model_spend_authorized=true is required before paid execution. It also plainly bounds side effects ('Never creates a wallet signature or submits trades'), which is valuable given openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false.

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?

Four dense sentences that front-load the core action and then layer auth, payment, and side-effect limits. Domain jargon (x402, BYOK, Jev jurors) is heavy but each clause contributes operative information; nothing is redundant.

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 nested-object, auth-gated, paid mutation with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description covers the payment lifecycle and side-effect boundary well. The remaining gap is the capsule payload's required structure, which an agent must infer from the schema or the compile sibling.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does explain payment_signature (alternative to the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header), model_spend_authorized (must be true), and the auth header. However, the required capsule object and its six sub-fields (regime, thesis, support, contradiction, execution, metadata) are left completely unexplained beyond the word 'frozen'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: invoke the /decide service to run five Jev jurors over a frozen capsule, producing a persisted signed receipt. The 'frozen capsule' framing and receipt output cleanly separate it from verdict_compile_capsule and verdict_review_jury, though the sibling distinction is only implicit.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the capsule must already exist ('existing /decide service', 'frozen capsule') and payment must be arranged. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance naming an alternative sibling such as verdict_compile_capsule or verdict_status.

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