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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds useful artifact context — the claim must be falsifiable and carries a review date. It does not clarify the key ambiguity of whether the claim is persisted ('freeze'/'journal' vs readOnlyHint=true) or what happens on repeat calls, leaving a real gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output components, with the follow-up routing last. No filler, though the density means parameter details get squeezed out.

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 no explanation, but for a 12-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions the description is far too thin — an agent cannot infer what most inputs mean or whether the call persists state.

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 0% across 12 parameters, so the description must carry the semantic load and largely does not. 'Topic judgment' loosely gestures at the topic enum and 'review date' at a date field, but date, time, place, latitude, longitude, timezone, asOfDate, nodeMode, and birthTimeAccuracyMinutes are entirely 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 gives a specific verb (builds) and resource (one reviewable claim from a topic judgment) and enumerates the artifact's parts: active dasha window, observable outcome, falsifier, review date. It distinguishes itself somewhat by naming record_consultation_outcome as the resolution counterpart, but does not separate itself from close siblings like audit_prediction_claim or build_claim_evidence_ledger.

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 points to the downstream step ('Resolve it later with record_consultation_outcome'), which is a genuine lifecycle hint. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over the many adjacent claim/audit tools, so usage is only implied.

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