owp_validate_judgment_commitment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is read-only, never signs, never commits, and reports authority as 'not_checked' without ledger/key context. This is clear behavioral disclosure, though the return format is not described.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and safety properties, with no redundant words.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers safety and authority behavior. However, it lacks details about the exact validation logic or expected payload structure, limited by parameter semantics.

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?

The schema has a single required parameter payload_json with 0% coverage, and the description does not explain the parameter's format or content. The name and tool purpose imply it is the JudgmentCommitment, but no explicit details are provided.

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 identifies the tool's function: validate a signed JudgmentCommitment. It emphasizes read-only, no authority, never signs, and never commits, which distinguishes it from signing and committing tools like owp_sign_payload.

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?

The description implies usage for validating JudgmentCommitment objects but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling validation tools like owp_validate_profile or owp_validate_action_binding_manifest. It provides context about authority reporting but no exclusions or alternatives.

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