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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the danger is known; the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that — a ruling pays at most once, and payout is capped by the bond's available balance so over-claims exhaust the bond. It does not disclose authorization requirements or what the caller receives back, but the payout semantics are a meaningful addition.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition, then the payout constraint. No filler and no restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive nature is well covered. The remaining gap is call-correctness: an agent cannot determine from this text what setting "upheld" to false does, which matters for a tool that irreversibly slashes a bond's balance.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden; it does explain the provenance and meaning of ruling_case_id and ruling_hash, and links bond_id indirectly via "the bond's available balance." However, the outcome-determining "upheld" boolean (default true) and the distinction between bond_id and claim_id are left entirely 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Execute an arbitration ruling against a claim." That is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as release_bond, activate_bond, and post_bond, which operate on the bond lifecycle rather than on an arbitration outcome.

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?

"Requires the ruling's case id + content hash from agent-arbitration — no ruling, no slash" gives an explicit precondition and implicit timing (only after arbitration has ruled). It stops short of naming alternatives (for example, when to use release_bond instead) or stating who is authorized to slash.

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