evaluate_admission

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (no side effect from creating an arrival), but omits details like error handling, return format, or prerequisites. The description is honest but incomplete for full transparency.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it could potentially include more guidance without becoming wordy. It avoids over-elaboration.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error details). It does not. Additionally, while the schema documents parameter types, the description does not clarify the expected structure of 'exitMarkerJson' beyond being a JSON string. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 the tool's action: 'Check whether an EXIT marker meets an admission policy'. It also explicitly distinguishes from side-effect tools by noting 'without creating an arrival', differentiating it from siblings like 'verify_and_admit' which presumably creates an arrival.

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 phrase 'without creating an arrival' implies a dry-run usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_and_admit' or 'verify_exit_marker'. Sibling names provide context but the description itself lacks direct usage instructions.

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