assess_validity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses abstention to AMBIGUOUS rather than guessing, mandatory human-verify gates, and decision-support-only intent. These go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand safety and verification requirements.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and verdict types, then adding key behaviors (abstention, human-verify gates, decision-support). Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or waste.

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?

The description covers the tool's orchestrated nature, output components (per-condition results, conditions forcing verdict, calibration note), abstention behavior, and human-verify requirement. It is largely complete given the schema and output schema exist, though it omits any mention of the input parameter and when to use it, which is partially covered by other dimensions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter (case_text). It does not explicitly explain what case_text should contain, its format, or any requirements. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description provides no direct semantic guidance, leaving a gap for low coverage.

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's function with a specific verb ('Orchestrated assessment') and resource (the case text), and defines the output verdicts (VALID/INVALID/AMBIGUOUS). It distinguishes itself from siblings (extract_break_clause, check_conditions, find_citation) by being an orchestrated, holistic assessment rather than a targeted extraction or check.

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 implies usage context ('Orchestrated assessment', 'Decision-support only') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. The abstention behavior is a partial guideline, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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