arbitration__verify_ruling

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or modifies state, nor does it disclose any side effects, permissions, or error conditions. While 'verify' suggests non-destructive behavior, this is not confirmed, leaving ambiguity about behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key behavior.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should cover more contextual details. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a detailed report), prerequisites (e.g., the ruling must exist), or error scenarios. The tool is simple, but the description omits important operational context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description adds context by mentioning 'cited evidence + trust inputs', but does not explain the meaning of the single parameter `case_id` beyond implying it identifies the ruling. This provides some value but lacks explicit parameter guidance.

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 tool's action: recompute a ruling from evidence and trust inputs, then verify it matches stored allocation. It uses specific verbs ('recompute', 'check', 'matches') and distinguishes from sibling tools like `arbitration__rule` (which creates rulings) and `arbitration__get_case` (retrieves case data).

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 this tool is for verifying a ruling after it has been made, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like `arbitration__rule` or when not to use it. No when-not or direct alternative guidance is provided.

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