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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful behavior: an abstain path, a bounded-confidence constraint, and a concrete price of 0.003 USDC. It omits permissions/payment mechanics, what happens when candidates are irreconcilable, and the result shape.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the operation and appends the per-candidate requirements and price. No filler, though the semicolon-separated clauses make it slightly terse to parse.

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 two-parameter tool with a nested array, a nested policy object, no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It never explains the policy structure, the resolution rules, or the return value, leaving an agent unable to invoke it confidently.

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 0% and objects are nested, so the schema explains little. The description usefully enumerates the required candidate bindings (source, value hash, observation time, bounded confidence), which covers the candidates parameter, but the required 'policy' object is left entirely opaque.

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 verb pair 'Resolve or abstain' combined with the name gives a rough idea that this adjudicates conflicting candidates, and it names the shape candidates must take. But it never states the resource being resolved (conflicting values? sources?) or what resolution produces, so the purpose stays implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings like signed_result_comparator or verify, nor any precondition or exclusion. 'Resolve or abstain' hints at output behavior, not usage context.

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