arbitration__rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the ruling is deterministic, exactly-once, and idempotent (re-ruling returns existing ruling). It also explains the inputs (evidence weights, trust scores) and output (escrow instruction). However, it does not mention prerequisites or error conditions.

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 a single sentence that efficiently packs key information (purpose, inputs, behavior, idempotency). It is front-loaded with a clarifying tag. Could be slightly restructured for readability, but overall concise.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior but omits prerequisites (e.g., trust scores must be set, evidence submitted). For a complex domain like arbitration, this missing context lowers completeness.

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 the description only mentions case_id in passing without describing its format, source, or constraints. The agent is left without guidance on how to obtain or validate the required parameter.

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 that the tool issues a deterministic ruling, allocates disputed amounts based on evidence weights and trust scores, and emits an escrow instruction. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like arbitration__file_case and arbitration__submit_evidence by focusing on the ruling action.

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 that the tool should be used after evidence and trust scores are set, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like arbitration__verify_ruling. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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