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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds substantive context: it grades supplied evidence and 'does not independently verify source truth,' warns against fabricating evidence, and names the return payload (recommendation, trust signal, missing evidence). It also discloses trial allowances, shared capacity, and a 24-hour result-recovery window. Consistent with annotations; no contradiction.

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 core purpose and constraints are front-loaded and useful, but the description then carries a large amount of commercial boilerplate (trial mechanics, HTTP alternative, x402 pricing, payment-signature recovery, legal disclaimers) that dilutes the actionable content. Several sentences serve billing rather than tool selection.

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 9-parameter tool with an output schema present (so return values need not be re-explained), the description covers purpose, required inputs, evidence-only limitations, an example, and access mechanics. It is largely complete, with the main gap being enum-level semantics for decision_stage and source_type.

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 low (22%), so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists the six required arguments (actor, target_surface, requested_action, decision_stage, dated_sources, risk_question) and provides a fully worked synthetic example showing nested actor fields, source objects, and requested_output. It does not explain the meaning of each enum value, so it stops short of a 5.

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 uses a specific verb (triage) and resource (trust evidence for an agent-mediated interaction) and enumerates the evidence dimensions it weighs (identity, operator/principal authorization, tool scope, session auth, action intent). It also states what is returned. Sibling differentiation exists but is framed around trial/billing workflow rather than task selection, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clearly states the triggering condition ('before a high-stakes action executes') and the prerequisite workflow ('obtain the source records requested by inputSchema before asking for a decision-ready result', 'Do not fabricate missing evidence'). It also spells out the free-trial call sequence via siblings free_trial_status and free_trial. No explicit when-not-to-use beyond the evidence-only scope caveat.

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