evaluate_spend_gate

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavioral fact: hard policy violations cannot be overridden by a human. However, it does not state whether the tool mutates state, consumes budget/quota, requires authentication, or what happens on error, leaving notable gaps for a policy-evaluation tool.

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 sentences, front-loads the core action and outcomes, and avoids filler. Every clause adds useful information: the gate type, the possible return states, the presence of claims plus content hash, and the hard-block caveat.

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?

The description gives enough for basic use but lacks some completeness for a nested-parameter tool with no output schema. It does not explain the distinction between LOCKED and BLOCKED, the shape of the claims, or the meaning of the content hash. The behavioral caveat helps, but the description is not richly complete given the complexity of the inputs.

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 high: the top-level parameters action, policy, and committed_today each have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. Nested fields like asset, notional, max_notional, and hitl_threshold remain self-describing from names but are not elaborated.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and names a clear resource ('CHP Profile B capital/spend gate on a proposed action'). It also lists concrete outputs (LOCKED, HITL_REQUIRED, or BLOCKED with claims and a content hash), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like approve_spend and chp_content_hash.

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 when to use the tool: to evaluate a proposed action against the CHP Profile B spend gate before approval. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or how this tool relates to approve_spend, chp_content_hash, or chp_version, so the guidance is not fully explicit.

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