Record a verdict

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: real/false claims feed routing and the 'confidently wrong' record, and a note alone is insufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then conditions and parameter expectations. It is dense but every sentence carries operational meaning, with no wasted preamble.

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 five-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, per-seat requirement, and the importance of real/false. The main gap is that it does not explain the required useful boolean.

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 80%, so the schema already documents call, note, real, and false. The description adds semantics for real and false as one-sentence true/untrue claims, and explains why note alone is not enough; however, the required useful boolean remains unexplained.

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 verb and resource: judging one seat's answer by its call id. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as pending_verdicts.

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 a clear usage condition: judge once the answer has been checked against the source, and submit one verdict per seat judged. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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