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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds behavior beyond that: 'Evidence only; no sum of money. Free, no account; records a GAIP receipt only.' This clarifies the call is non-financial and produces a receipt as a side effect, which is useful context the annotations don't convey. It doesn't address idempotency or what happens on repeated calls, so it doesn't reach 5.

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 five short, front-loaded sentences with no repetition or filler. Each sentence contributes a distinct detail: when to use, what to pass, the return values, the evidence-only scope, the cost/auth model, and the input constraint.

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?

For a read-like, non-destructive tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is complete: it covers the trigger condition, required inputs, return format, and any side effects (a receipt). There is no apparent missing information that would cause an agent to misuse the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaningful guidance by naming `agreement_id` (from witness_accept_terms) and `continuity_handle` as the parameters to pass. It also states the input constraint 'Inputs must be public and non-personal,' which reinforces the data_classification enum. This is more than what the schema alone provides, justifying a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource — it returns a signed GAIP finding (MET/NOT_MET/INDETERMINATE) on the agreed rule for an agreement. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like witness_accept_terms, witness_delivery, and witness_signoff by clarifying it produces an evidence-only verdict, not a delivery record or a signoff.

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?

It gives a clear precondition: 'Use this when deliveries exist for an agreement.' That context tells the agent when the tool is applicable. It doesn't name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., if no deliveries exist or if a dispute bundle is wanted), so it falls short of the 5 tier.

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