stability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the output classification scheme (robust/leaning/coin-flip), which is useful, but omits thresholds, how many runs N requires, how the array is aggregated, or what makes a result 'robust' vs 'leaning'.

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?

Two compact sentences with the input→output mapping front-loaded. Efficient, though the second sentence is somewhat stylistic rather than informational.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only documentation. Naming the three result categories partially covers the return value, but input structure, run-count expectations, and thresholds are missing, leaving it incomplete for a standalone analytical tool.

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 0% and there is one required parameter. The phrase 'verdicts of N runs' adds meaning beyond the bare 'verdicts' array in the schema, implying a list of repeated-verdict outputs, but the item format/structure remains unspecified.

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 an input-to-output flow (verdicts of N runs → robust/leaning/coin-flip) and a conceptual purpose (trust through stability). However there is no clear verb/resource framing and no differentiation from the many verdict-related siblings (council_verdict, gate_verdict, fidelity_check). An agent can guess what it does but not how it differs.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The 'distinguishes a stable conclusion from a coin flip' line is a rationale, not guidance on when an agent should call this vs. e.g. gate_verdict or council_verdict.

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