gate

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive hints, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds meaningful context by defining the output categories (pass/review/fail) and explicitly disclaiming authorization/security semantics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two tightly worded sentences deliver the core purpose, usage boundaries, and alternatives with no filler. The most important guidance is front-loaded with 'USE WHEN,' making it scannable for an agent.

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 is moderately complex with nested objects, five parameters, and no schema descriptions, and the description covers selection and exclusion well. However, it does not explain how to construct state or checks, which are required parameters, leaving a significant gap for invocation. The output schema and annotations reduce some burden, but the missing parameter semantics prevent full completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely maps to parameters: 'bounded checks' suggests the checks property and 'thresholds' hints at pass_at/review_at. However, required parameters like state and the complex shape of checks are left unexplained, and the meaning of model is entirely absent. The description does not provide enough parameter-level detail for correct invocation.

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's function: combining 'multiple bounded checks and thresholds into pass/review/fail.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming verify and review as alternatives for different use cases. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' guidance, naming the sibling tools verify and review as the correct alternatives. It also adds a clear exclusion: 'This is not authorization or a security boundary,' which prevents misuse. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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