Run Evidence Judge Consensus Pass

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

Rich disclosure well beyond the annotations: self-judge causes fail-closed consensus, active mode only promotes unanimous verified-satisfied judgments with non-empty rationales and zero parser warnings, shadow mode never mutates state, and the call spends the petitioner's budget on paid provider calls requiring a capability token. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Four dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The fail-closed and mode rules are packed efficiently, though the run-on mode sentence is heavy.

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 9-parameter mutation-adjacent tool with no output schema, the behavioral and prerequisite coverage is strong and no return-format explanation is needed. The gap is that several parameters (draft, round, review_focus, response_format) are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies judge_peers (two distinct enabled peers), shadow_mode (never mutates state), item_ids (self-judge fails that item's consensus), and the caller/petitioner token requirement, but says nothing about draft, round, review_focus, or response_format.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: running a multi-peer evidence judgment consensus pass. The 'Multi-peer' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the single-peer sibling session_evidence_judge_pass, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Gives real prerequisites (at least two distinct enabled judge peers, capability token required) and contrasts active vs shadow mode. However it never explicitly says when to choose this over session_evidence_judge_pass or the other judge/report siblings, leaving routing to inference.

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