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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description usefully confirms 'takes no external action' and states the three possible verdicts. It does not explain how the assessment is performed, what inputs drive the outcome, or any limits beyond being 'bounded.' Reasonable added context for a read-only tool, but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the safety constraint. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input side is severely under-explained for a 9-parameter decision assessment. The description gives no semantic help for filling the required fields, which is the main gap an agent would face.

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?

There are 9 required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. No meaning is added for goal, evidence, constraints, reversibility, urgency, decision_owner, or any other input, leaving the agent to guess.

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 identifies the resource (a decision) and the outcome space (proceed, revise, or pause), so an agent can tell this is an assessment tool rather than an action executor. It lacks a crisp imperative verb and does not differentiate from siblings, but no siblings exist. Clear enough for a 4.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools are given. The phrase 'bounded decision assessment' implies a context but does not tell an agent when this tool is appropriate versus not.

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