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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: deterministic execution, cost (1 credit), per-jurisdiction thresholds, override requirements, and the chain linking to post-hoc certificates. It also clarifies what the tool does not do (content safety classification), providing complete transparency.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, covering verdicts, thresholds, overrides, and chain. It is slightly lengthy but efficient for the tool's complexity, earning a 4 rather than a 5 due to minor redundancy (e.g., 'pure deterministic' is stated twice).

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 the tool's complexity (nested object, 2 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the three verdicts, jurisdiction-specific thresholds, override requirements, cost, and deterministic nature. It also contextualizes the tool within the broader incident chain, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to decide usage.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds context about the tool's overall purpose and the three verdicts but does not provide additional semantics for specific parameters beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool as a 'deterministic prospective-evaluation gate' that evaluates a ProposedAction before delivery, returning one of three verdicts. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is a policy gate on structured action metadata, not a content safety classifier. This provides a specific verb-resource combination with clear differentiation.

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 specifies to use the tool 'BEFORE the agent delivers a response', provides context on thresholds per jurisdiction, and explains overrides requiring rationale. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare directly with sibling tools like verify_certificate or get_anchor_status, leaving some guidance implicit.

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