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

Annotations are all false hints (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool writes a ledger tip ('appends an ask/refuse ledger tip (not idempotent)'), does not execute domain software, requires confirm=true or dry_run=true for mutation, and returns a specific result shape. This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is a long single paragraph that mixes gate semantics, runtime identity, ledger behavior, and module-wrapper internals. Phrases like 'Named wrapper — same DecisionGATE kernel; not the full MASTER-33 hop list; Softwares exec stays fraggate_call' add differentiating detail but are cryptic and could be trimmed or structured for better scannability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 optional params, mutation guards, ledger writes, gate evaluation), the description covers all essential decision axes: when to use, when not to use, side effects, mutation requirements, and return values. An output schema exists, so the returns need not be fully spelled out, but the description still names key outputs (gate view, final_state, ledger_tip, result) and the caller identity constraint.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents each parameter and even contains notes like 'Missing evidence can fail a gate' and the confirm/dry_run behavior. The description adds a few clarifications ('All proposal fields are optional', 'Empty {} still runs the five gates'), but these largely mirror the schema. No significant additional parameter meaning is provided.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run the named DecisionGATE five sequential gates on a proposal' and immediately clarifies the scope ('without executing a catalog product'). It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly naming fraggate_call and library_lookup as the alternatives for execution and search, so an agent can select this tool unambiguously.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you want a gate check without executing a catalog product verb. Do not use it for executing a product op or searching the library; use fraggate_call or library_lookup instead.' It also notes the automatic invocation inside fraggate_call, which is a valuable context signal for avoiding redundant calls.

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