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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds that the tool recomputes from cited evidence and trust inputs and compares against stored allocation, but it does not explain mismatch handling or other operational details.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with little waste. The parenthetical 'machine-checkable justice' is slightly decorative but does not obscure the core meaning.

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 one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the core action adequately. However, it leaves gaps around when to invoke the tool and what case_id represents, which are relevant for correct use.

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 never mentions the sole parameter case_id. It refers to 'its cited evidence' but does not clarify what case_id identifies or how it is used.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Recompute the ruling' and 'check it matches the stored allocation.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as rule or get_case.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The verification purpose is implied, but the agent must infer the workflow context.

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