gate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false deminishing the need for safety disclosure. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying that this is not a security control and that human/policy controls should remain in place. It does not contradict the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately clarifying the most important caveat. There is no filler, repetition, or redundant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is less critical. However, the description does not explain how the five parameters interact, what makes a check 'bounded', or how pass_at and review_at thresholds map to the pass/review/fail outcome. The core concept is present but the operational details are incomplete.

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 by explaining the parameters. It does not explain what 'state', 'checks', 'pass_at', or 'review_at' mean beyond the generic phrase 'bounded pass checks'. The threshold parameters especially need semantic explanation, which is missing.

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 a specific action ('Evaluate bounded pass checks') and a concrete output transformation ('turn their probabilities into pass/review/fail'). It also distinguishes itself from an authorization or security boundary, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools such as evaluate, check, or verify.

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 when-not-to-use signal: 'This is not an authorization or security boundary; keep normal human and policy controls.' This provides clear context about appropriate non-security usage, but it does not name specific alternative tools or broader when-to-use scenarios.

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