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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: the operation is idempotent, and a forecast miss incurs a $0.05 charge against a per-principal per-period cap. That is genuine mutation-cost and retry-safety context. It still omits permissions/auth requirements, side effects on the verdict record, and what a settled verdict returns.

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 that front-loads the action and immediately qualifies it with idempotency and cost. Nothing is redundant, though the bracketed parameter list is arguably filler given the schema. Efficient and well-ordered.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 5 undocumented parameters, the description is thin: it never covers authorisation, the effect of settling on the verdict, error behaviour, or the meaning of the optional fields. Idempotency and pricing are valuable but not sufficient to call it complete.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only re-lists the parameter names with optionality markers ({verdict_id, outcome, failure_class?, result?, cost_usd?}), which the required list already conveys, and never explains what failure_class versus result should contain or the units/meaning of cost_usd. The inline block adds surface area without adding semantics.

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+resource ('Settle a verdict') with the key fields inlined, so an agent knows this finalizes a verdict record rather than reading or listing one. The sibling tools (calibration_report, check_brief, duplicate_lookup) are functionally unrelated, so no sibling differentiation is needed. The term 'verdict' is domain jargon left undefined, which keeps it 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative — it never says under what circumstances a verdict should be settled versus looked up or reported on. Idempotency is disclosed, but that is a behavioral property, not a selection rule. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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