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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses statelessness, that the verdict comes from a verb-tier heuristic on the action name and resource rather than a proof, exactly what each verdict returns, and that ESCALATE requires a human outside this tool. It also warns that the gate does not observe or block un-routed agent actions – a critical scope limit.

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?

Front-loaded with the core concept ('Two-phase decision gate with a real verdict') followed by tightly packed sentences that each carry distinct, load-bearing information. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 stateless, high-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers the phase model, verdict outcomes, scope limits, and attestation fields adequately; the output schema relieves it of describing return shape. The main gap is `context` semantics and the precise preview_id→COMMIT linkage, but overall it is close to 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 coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains phase (PREVIEW/COMMIT), preview_id's role in the two-phase flow, and that triggered_by_type/source/model are optional attestation, but it never explains the `context` object or what triggered_by_* actually attest, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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+resource ('two-phase decision gate') and enumerates the exact verdicts (ALLOW/DENY/ESCALATE) and phase semantics (PREVIEW/COMMIT). It is distinguishable from siblings like mint_action_receipt and verify_receipt because it frames this tool as the decision gate that other tools' receipts record/verify.

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 gives clear context: PREVIEW acts without acting, COMMIT re-evaluates and mints a receipt, and it only applies to actions the caller explicitly routes through it. It does not, however, explicitly say when to choose this over mint_action_receipt or verify_receipt, so the alternative-routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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