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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure and does well by mentioning deterministic verdict types, reason codes, safe wording, and mandatory attribution. It also clarifies input restrictions. However, it does not cover failure modes or edge cases like missing contracts.

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 three sentences, tightly written, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value without 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct a request. It lacks parameter explanations, conditions for each verdict, and details on how to select appropriate inputs.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning of individual parameters like causal_assertion, legal_conclusion, or passport_id. It only provides high-level context about the tool's purpose, leaving parameter semantics largely 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 clearly states the tool certifies a proposed use of an FRC statistic against its published Claim Contract, using the specific verb 'certify' with a clear resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch statistics rather than validate claims.

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?

Explicitly indicates when to use: 'BEFORE writing free text,' which provides a clear context for use. It also notes a limitation ('Never accepts borrower details'), but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use the tool relative to siblings.

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