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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description reinforces the non-persistence trait with 'Does not store the record' plus the demo-only data constraint. It also enumerates the summary dimensions (signature status, decision, abstention, human review, evidence count), which tells the agent what to expect without an output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by two short constraint clauses. Every element carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

Enumerating the summary fields compensates for the absent output schema, which is good. But with an untyped nested `record` object and no hint about how to obtain a valid record (e.g., from replay_decision_record or verify_decision_record), an agent can select the tool yet still not know how to supply input.

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?

The single `record` parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties=true and 0% schema description coverage, so the schema conveys nothing about expected shape or required keys. The description never describes what a record must contain or where to obtain one, leaving the only input completely opaque.

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 pair (verifies, summarizes) and a specific resource (a Forge Orbital demo decision record), and enumerates the summary fields the caller gets back. It stops short of naming how it differs from the close siblings verify_decision_record and replay_decision_record, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

'Demo records only' is a real scoping constraint that rules out production records. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus verify_decision_record (which presumably validates rather than summarizes) or replay_decision_record, so the selection logic between the three closely related tools is left to inference.

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