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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses billing behavior (trial, pass ceiling, then $0.002 x402) and the checker requirement, but leaves unclear whether the call mutates duty state, what authorization is needed, and whether repeated calls are idempotent or re-billed.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded on the decision and its possible values, with the conditional rule and billing following. Every clause carries information; the only cost is heavy nesting that slightly reduces scanability.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the decision values, the checker condition, and billing. It still omits the meaning of 'agent', the checker's required format, and the shape of the 'allowed' result beyond naming it.

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 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It implies task_class scoping and clarifies the checker's role (must be FIT and non-self for consequential CAUTION), but the 'agent' parameter is never explained and the checker's format is unspecified — partial compensation only.

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 names a specific decision resource ('Duty-state gate decision') and enumerates the outcomes (FIT/CAUTION/GROUNDED + allowed) scoped to a task class. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling duty_state.

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 gives one conditional rule — consequential classes in CAUTION require a FIT non-self checker — which is real usage guidance. But it never says when to call this versus duty_state or duty_record_event, so the agent must infer the selection boundary.

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