ygo_verify_ruling

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it discloses that the call executes a scenario on ocgcore, that a preset may be auto-selected or overridden, and that the response pairs a verdict with the deciding observation. Not covered: whether any state is persisted, cost/latency of running a real engine, or what happens when no matching scenario 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?

Front-loaded with the imperative use-case, then purpose, then output contract — exactly the right order for an agent skimming. The closing pairing of 'This is how a judge conclusion becomes checkable' with 'Do not answer from memory' is somewhat redundant with the opening sentence and could be trimmed.

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 no annotations, the description supplies the verdict set and the notion of an accompanying observation, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. The only gap is the failure mode when no preset matches and no scenario is supplied.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns the extra point by explaining the relationship between the parameters rather than just restating them — claim is a natural-language sentence, the tool picks a matching scenario, and scenario/scenarioId override that auto-selection.

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 and resource ('Verify a ruling CLAIM against the engine') and goes further to name the mechanism (ocgcore execution) and the exact output vocabulary (SUPPORTED / CONTRADICTED / INCONCLUSIVE). That combination separates it cleanly from siblings like ygo_judge_card, ygo_judge_interaction and ygo_judge_scenario, which an agent could otherwise confuse with it.

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 an explicit trigger condition ('USE THIS before asserting any ruling you cannot point at engine evidence for') plus a strong negative instruction ('Do not answer from memory; call this tool first'). What it lacks is any routing against the near-neighbour siblings — nothing says when to prefer ygo_judge_interaction or ygo_judge_scenario over this, which is the most likely mis-selection risk.

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