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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real signal: statelessness, the demo-data-only constraint, and that the output includes the evidence needed to overturn the verdict.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the operational constraints (read-only, stateless, demo data) trailing compactly.

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 does a fair job describing what comes back, but for a single opaque nested-object input it leaves the agent without enough to supply a valid record. The main completeness gap is input provenance, not output behavior.

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 is one required parameter, 'record', typed as a free-form object with additionalProperties true and zero schema description coverage. The description says it is a 'demo decision record' but gives no field names, shape, or where to obtain one, so the agent cannot reliably construct the argument.

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: explains why a verdict was reached in a Forge Orbital decision record, plus what evidence would change it. This implicitly separates it from siblings like replay_decision_record and verify_decision_record, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied only: 'demo decision record' and 'demo data only' narrow the scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus replay_decision_record, verify_decision_record, or get_attestation_summary. The agent must infer the routing itself.

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