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

The description does disclose useful traits beyond annotations: local inference, grammar constraint with a 100% schema guarantee, no hallucination, and a signed receipt artifact. However, the parenthetical '(READ-ONLY: mutations refused)' directly conflicts with readOnlyHint=false in the annotations, which is only reconcilable if the receipt write is what makes it non-read-only. destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true partly mitigate, but the explicit read-only label is misleading.

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 compact clauses with the core action and guarantee front-loaded, and no filler sentences. The parenthetical read-only warning, while misleading, is at least placed where it will be seen.

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 should convey what a caller gets back; it mentions a signed deliberation receipt but not the decision/selection result or the receipt location semantics. With only three fully-described params it is close to adequate, but the read-only contradiction and thin return-shape explanation leave gaps.

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 intent, candidates, and emit_receipt are already documented in structured form. The description adds only the notion of 'ambiguous candidate options' and confirms the receipt, without clarifying the accepted shapes of candidates (array vs object) or when to disable emit_receipt.

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?

Names a specific verb (deliberate) and resource (ambiguous candidate options) and states the mechanism and side effect (grammar-constrained local SLM inference plus a signed deliberation receipt). It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like decision.shortlist or decision.outcome, which is left to the agent to infer.

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 phrase 'ambiguous candidate options' implies the usage condition (use when candidates are ambiguous rather than clearly ranked), but there is no explicit when-not, no prerequisite, and no named alternative such as decision.shortlist for non-ambiguous cases. Usage is only implied.

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