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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool can refuse (DEAD-FLAG, stale-hash refusal), which is genuine behavioral signal, but says nothing about what a refused vs. accepted evaluation looks like, what the 'receipt' represents, or side effects.

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?

It is a single terse fragment with no wasted words, but the compactness is under-specification rather than conciseness — the front-loaded noun phrase alone does not convey an actionable operation.

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 two-parameter tool with a required nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. Nothing explains the receipt structure, the hash-matching contract, or the refusal outcomes an agent must handle.

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% and the description explains neither 'receipt' (a required nested object) nor 'expected_source_hash'. With a nested-object required parameter completely undocumented, the agent has no basis for constructing a valid call.

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 phrase 'Dispatch-gate evaluation' gestures at a gate/check operation but never states in plain terms what the tool actually does or what it returns. 'pin, DEAD-FLAG and stale-hash refusal' is unexplained jargon that an agent cannot reliably decode; it hints at refusal conditions but does not define them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sandbox_verify_receipt, sandbox_cached_verdict, or the other siblings. The mention of 'stale-hash refusal' and 'expected_source_hash' in the schema implies a verification context, but the description never routes the agent explicitly.

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