evaluate_threshold

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only evaluation ('Evaluate whether') but does not explicitly state mutability, side effects, or return behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 moderately simple tool with no output schema, the description captures the essential purpose but lacks context about the policy format, expected signature structure, or edge cases. It is adequate as a minimal viable description but leaves questions about how 'threshold' is determined.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate. While 'multi-class' hints that 'keyClass' is significant, the description does not explain the structure of 'signatures' or the meaning of 'publicKey', 'signedAt', or 'signature'. The 'charter_id' description is already in the schema.

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 action ('Evaluate whether'), the object ('signatures'), and the specific policy ('multi-class threshold policy (Consilium Q5)'). This is a specific verb+resource+scope construction that distinguishes it from sibling evaluation tools like evaluate_revocation_impact or evaluate_intent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for similar purposes. The description only states what the tool does, not when to prefer it.

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