require_evidence_for_claim

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms read-only behavior by describing a response (blocking flag) rather than a mutation. It adds value by explaining the blocking mechanism and how callers should honor the flag. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the purpose, usage context, and behavioral output. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 core functionality and the blocking flag. It hints at the mode parameter but does not explicitly detail it; however, the schema provides that detail. Without an output schema, the description could be more explicit about the response structure, but it is sufficient for understanding the tool's role.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Leader-Agent completion gate' that requires evidence before a completion claim can be made. It specifies the verb ('require evidence') and the resource ('completion gate'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'verify_claim' and 'satisfy_gate' by focusing on the gate mechanism.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Before any agent declares done/fixed/shipped/resolved'. It implies the context and provides the blocking vs advisory behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, which would strengthen the guidance.

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