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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses that the verdict is recomputed, that it includes supporting data, that it flags non-decision-grade verdicts, that it is paid per call via x402, and that responses are private and never cached. This goes well beyond a basic verb phrase and gives the agent realistic expectations for side effects, cost, and privacy.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose and return contents come first, followed by behavioral boundaries, pricing, and privacy. No wasted words or redundant restatements of the title or schema are present.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the key return elements (receipt bytes, challenge count, inputs) and the decision-grade behavior, and the input schema covers obligationId thoroughly. The only minor gap is the absence of a precise output field structure or error-handling expectations, but for a simple one-parameter tool the description is sufficiently complete.

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%, and the schema already provides strong semantics for obligationId, including its source, format, and the decisionGrade caveat. The tool description complements the output semantics but does not add new meaning about the parameter itself, so the baseline score of 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 a specific action: 'Return a recomputed verdict on a published Tereno obligation' and enumerates the included outputs: receipt bytes, challenge count, and inputs to reproduce the verdict. It also distinguishes itself from escrow, custody, and settlement operations, making its role as a pure verdict product unambiguous relative to siblings.

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 establishes clear context: it is for checking whether an economic condition was satisfied on a published obligation, with obligationId sourced from tereno_find_claims. It also states exclusions ('No escrow, no custody, no settlement'), which helps an agent avoid misusing it for other Tereno operations, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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