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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose a mutation effect (quarantining) and a preservation guarantee ('Does not delete settlement evidence'), which is genuine non-destructive context. It stops short of covering reversibility, permissions required, or what 'quarantine' actually changes to the record.

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?

Two short sentences, the action front-loaded and the key safety caveat immediately following. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Zero params and no output schema keep the surface small, but for a mutation tool with no annotations the description is thin: it doesn't clarify what state the quarantined classification moves to or whether the action is reversible. Adequate but with clear gaps for a state-changing operation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter semantics are missing.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Quarantine') with a specific object ('false KYC classifications') and grounds it with a concrete example (wallet-signature authentication). However, it never clarifies its relationship to the similarly-prefixed siblings (human_kyc_claim, human_kyc_complete, human_kyc_market), so an agent can't route by prefix alone.

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 implies usage ('false KYC classifications') but gives no explicit when/when-not conditions and names no alternative tools for the adjacent flow steps. An agent must infer which cases count as 'false' and when to quarantine versus claim or complete.

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