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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that the top-level verdict is conservative and never changes, what the four movable axes are, and that the tool is deterministic, sealed, and stateless. This gives the agent critical behavior information that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

The description is four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, input requirements, behavioral constraints, and processing guarantees. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested observations, no output schema), the description covers purpose, inputs, behavioral nuances, and guarantees. It mentions the four axes that move, giving a sense of the output, but it does not explicitly describe the return format or error conditions, which would make it fully 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 100%, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It does add a simple 'what happened' gloss for observations and confirms the artifact comes from claim_safety_verdict, but these are minor clarifications. The schema already defines the nested structure and enums, so the description doesn't meaningfully expand parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Re-judge a prior claim-safety verdict against new EVIDENCE.' It uses a specific verb ('re-judge') and resource ('claim-safety verdict'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by requiring the artifact from claim_safety_verdict and focusing on evidence-driven re-evaluation.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: it tells the user to pass the artifact from claim_safety_verdict and observations, and explains that the top-level verdict never changes. While it doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use' or name alternatives, the dependency on a prior verdict implies use after an initial claim_safety_verdict, which is sufficient guidance.

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