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

Annotations already declare write/no-idempotency/no-destruction and closed-world scope, so the bar is lower. The description adds real workflow context: the addressed sides must answer in the next stage, and an API key is required. It stops short of stating whether the stage advances irreversibly or how the idempotencyKey is echoed back, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences: action and stage first, downstream consequence second, alternative third. No redundancy and nothing that fails to earn 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?

With no output schema, the description could say what a successful call returns (e.g., the generated idempotency key), and there is a minor internal inconsistency in the schema itself (text listed as maxLength 20000 but described as 4000 characters) that is outside the description's scope. Stage positioning, alternative routing and auth are all covered, so it is nearly complete for a 5-parameter write tool.

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 text, caseId, addressedTo, evidenceIds and idempotencyKey are all already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description only adds the behavioral meaning of addressedTo (the named sides answer in the next stage), which is marginal value beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('The judge puts questions to one or both sides') and pins the workflow stage (JUDGE_QUESTIONS), making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like make_statement or submit_evidence. An agent knows exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the operating stage and names an explicit alternative with its selecting condition: 'To proceed without questions, use conclude_stage.' That is when-to-use plus a concrete when-to-use-something-else, which is exactly what routing guidance requires.

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