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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description usefully adds that this is experimental/simulation and advisory-only with no proof verification or escrow. However, it leaves a real gap: readOnlyHint=false implies some side effect, yet the description never says what state (if any) 'settle' actually changes.

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 tight sentences with the experimental/simulation tag front-loaded and the two outcome labels glossed inline. No filler; slightly dense parentheticals are the only cost.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract; it names the two outcomes but not the response shape or what the classification is actually derived from (string parity? hash? proof content). For a 3-parameter adjudication tool this leaves the agent guessing about inputs-to-outputs mapping.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including that bid is a non-escrowed advisory label. The description reinforces the non-escrow nature of bid but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (classify) and resource (payload or proof string) with two named outcomes, Cho (even/pass) and Han (odd/anomaly). The 'advisory only, no verification, no escrow' clause implicitly separates it from settlement siblings like economy_settle and economy_chohan_arbitrate, though it never names them.

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?

The exclusions ('does not independently verify execution proofs or perform on-chain escrow') imply when not to use it and point toward receipts.verify / economy_settle, but no alternative is named and no positive when-to-use condition is given. Usage must be inferred from the negative scope.

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