Require Evidence For Claim

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description describes a verification/gating behavior which is read-only, so no contradiction. However, the description says 'Blocking response when evidence is missing' — this describes the response format but doesn't disclose what happens to the agent's session on a blocking decision, whether the gate persists state, what the blocking flag means downstream, or auth requirements. For a gate tool with no output schema, the behavioral burden is high and it only partially covers return semantics.

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 dense paragraph but front-loaded with the core purpose ('Leader-Agent completion gate'). Each clause adds value: the evidence requirement, the factual claim recheck, the blocking behavior, and caller expectations. Slightly dense but no wasted words.

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 tool has 4 params including a nested object (goalContract) with 6 sub-fields — moderately complex. The description explains the gate concept and mode but doesn't clarify the return value shape (no output schema present, so this cannot be inferred). It also doesn't clarify the relationship with sibling tools like satisfy_gate or verify_claim, which appear to overlap. For a gate-decision tool, the return semantics and downstream implications are under-specified.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add value by explaining the mode semantics (blocking vs advisory) beyond the raw enum, and by framing claim as 'completion claim text to verify' with examples. The goalContract nested object is well-covered by the schema's own per-field descriptions, so the description adds little beyond referencing 'agent handoff contract' context.

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 this is a 'Leader-Agent completion gate' that requires evidence before declaring done/fixed/shipped/resolved, and verifies factual claims. It's specific about the verb (require/recheck) and resource (completion claims/evidence). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like satisfy_gate, verify_claim, or gate_check, though the completion-gate framing does suggest a distinct role.

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 states when to use it: 'Before any agent declares done/fixed/shipped/resolved' and clarifies the caller behavior ('callers honor the blocking flag to stop completion claims'). It implicitly excludes the after-the-fact verification role of verify_claim, but doesn't explicitly name when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives for non-completion gates.

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