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

With no annotations, the description explains the read-only nature and enumerates the output contents (PASS/FAIL/CONTESTED, weights, per-validator verdicts). It lacks details on edge cases like missing CIDs or authorization requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values. It provides enough context for a simple tool, though it could mention format or error handling.

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?

The description does not directly explain the 'cid' parameter beyond the schema, but refers to it as a 'deliverable CID', adding context. With 0% schema coverage, more parameter detail would be beneficial.

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 'Read the reputation-weighted validation aggregate for a deliverable CID', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lawbor_validate by mentioning the aggregate and per-validator verdicts.

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 advises 'Consult before accepting an agent deliverable', giving a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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