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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the report is untrusted input and aggregation does not authenticate issuance, correctness, independence, trade approval or payment. That trust caveat is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot express. It stops short of describing what the recomputed report contains.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the caveats following. No filler, though the third sentence is dense enough that it could be split for readability.

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?

Safety behavior is well covered via annotations, and the trust disclaimer is valuable, but with no output schema and a deeply nested input the description should say what the recomputed aggregation report looks like and what the capsule supplies. The total silence on `capsule` is the main completeness gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does add real information about votes ('five uniquely identified'), conveying the count and juror-uniqueness constraint the schema cannot express, but the required `capsule` object (nine required fields) is never mentioned at all, leaving half the input undocumented.

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 specific verbs (validate, recompute) and resources (juror votes, jury aggregation), and clarifies that no new evaluation happens, which implicitly separates it from verdict_decide. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 negative guidance ('No new Jev evaluation occurs') implies this is for replaying/validating supplied votes rather than producing fresh verdicts, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus verdict_decide or verdict_verify_capsule. The agent must infer the routing.

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