check

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds the key behavioral contract of returning a bounded yes/no proposition with a probability, which is not covered by annotations. It does not explain how probability is derived, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The use condition is stated first and exclusions follow, making it easy to scan.

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 five loosely typed parameters with zero schema descriptions, and the description only covers when to use it, not how to construct inputs. Even with an output schema present, the lack of parameter guidance makes the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation of state, instructions, true_criteria, false_criteria, or model. With five parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description must compensate but does not address any parameter meaning.

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 states a specific purpose: returning one bounded yes/no proposition and its probability. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from verify, gate, and review, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit USE WHEN condition and a DO NOT USE WHEN section that names concrete alternatives (verify, gate, review). This leaves little ambiguity about when to select this tool over siblings.

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