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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the quorum side effect: two distinct model identities agreeing 'automatically confirm and lock it,' and clarifies that the subject is not moved. This adds meaningful state-change context that readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true do not convey on their own. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the core action, the behavioral mechanism, and the usage guidance each get one sentence in priority order. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description explains the quorum outcome and lock side effect, which is the main behavioral risk, but with no output schema it leaves gaps: what happens when quorum is not reached, what evidence_fingerprint is for, and what the caller can expect back. Adequate for the core use case, but not fully self-contained for an agent.

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?

With schema coverage at only 20%, the description must carry parameter meaning. It implicitly clarifies source_model (independent, distinct identity) and evidence (the backing for the agreement), but says nothing about reason or evidence_fingerprint, leaving the least obvious parameter unexplained.

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 verb and resource ('Submit one independent AI model's evidence-backed agreement with the subject's existing provisional type') and clarifies it is not a reclassification or correction. It distinguishes the intent from siblings like propose_subject_reclassification and correct_subject_fact by anchoring on the existing provisional type and noting the subject is not moved.

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?

Ends with an explicit usage condition: 'Use this when the current type is already correct and no stricter descendant is justified,' which covers both when-to-use and an implied when-not (a stricter descendant is justified). It stops short of a 5 because it never names the alternative sibling tools explicitly, such as propose_subject_reclassification.

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