Require Evidence For Claim

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: true, covering safety. The description adds that the tool can block responses when evidence is missing, but does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like error handling or integration with other gates. It is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing behavior. Every sentence is necessary and contributes meaning 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?

For a tool with no output schema and nested objects, the description gives high-level purpose and blocking behavior but omits response format, error conditions, and integration points. It is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'goalContract' parameter's use case in worker/orchestrator/reviewer loops, providing context beyond the schema descriptions.

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 is a 'Leader-Agent completion gate' that requires evidence before claims. It uses strong verbs like 'require' and 'block', and distinguishes from siblings by specifying its role in the completion flow.

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 when an agent declares done/fixed/shipped/resolved, but does not explicitly say when not to use it or offer alternatives like 'verify_claim' or 'satisfy_gate'. The context is clear but lacks direct comparison to siblings.

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