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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses reputation weighting, sybil resistance, seat deduplication, and the auto-pull mechanism. Does not mention any destructive behavior, but seems appropriate for a panel formation tool.

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 sentences cover the core mechanism, constraints, and flow. No fluff; every sentence adds critical information. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

The description explains the process but does not specify the output format or return value, only mentioning it calls lawbor_quorum. Without an output schema, the agent might need to infer the result. Completeness is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100%, but the description adds contextual meaning: explains the 'candidates' parameter's auto-pull behavior and the significance of 'minScore' as trust weight per seat. Provides more than just schema field descriptions.

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 clearly states it forms a reputation-weighted, sybil-deduped panel for quorum, specifies constraints like one wallet one seat, and describes the auto-pull and sequential calling of lawbor_quorum. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing itself from siblings.

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 description implies its role as glue between routing and consensus but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use, nor does it mention alternative tools. The auto-pull behavior is noted but no exclusions.

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