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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description nonetheless adds substantive context: nothing is stored, sent or changed, and the tool is explicitly demo-only with sample rules and no connection to the user's systems or live actions. That sandbox framing is behaviorally important and appears nowhere in the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then the optional lever. Only the read-only clause overlaps slightly with annotations, and even that adds the concrete 'nothing is stored, sent or changed' phrasing.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, side effects and demo scope adequately. It leaves gaps on how to obtain scenario and evidence ids, and what the returned 'signed decision record' contains or whether verify_decision_record should follow.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies that scenario_id selects among exactly five fictional scenarios (matching the enum) and that withdraw_evidence takes evidence ids and changes the resulting verdict — useful meaning beyond a bare string array. It still never says where valid evidence ids come from or that scenario ids can be discovered via list_scenarios.

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: computes a Forge Orbital verdict for one of five named scenarios and returns it with a signed decision record. The scope (sample scenarios, demo rules) separates it from production-path tools, but no sibling tool is named, so the agent must infer that list_scenarios supplies the ids and explain_verdict explains the result.

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 is implied by 'demo only' and 'optionally withdraw evidence ids to see how the verdict changes', which tells the agent the second parameter is an exploration lever. There is no explicit when-to-use versus explain_verdict, replay_decision_record, or verify_decision_record, which are the obvious alternatives for a returned decision record.

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