justhandled_promise_action_evidence_checker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the cost ($0.05 USDC) and implies a non-mutating analysis behavior through 'Compare' and 'flagging', but does not disclose return format, side effects, authentication needs, or whether any write operations occur.

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-loaded with the main action, and includes the cost as a separate sentence. No fluff or unnecessary 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?

The tool has 3 complex array parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description lacks return value details, usage context, and parameter relationship explanations. It does not mention the maxItems constraints or what a 'flagged' result looks like, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'promises', 'actions', and 'evidence' are the subjects of comparison, providing high-level meaning. However, it does not explain the relationships between parameters (e.g., how actions reference promise_ids) or the meaning of specific fields like 'status'.

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 function with specific verbs ('Compare', 'flagging') and resources ('declared promises', 'recorded actions', 'evidence'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the promise-action-evidence triad and unsupported completions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, despite the presence of many sibling checkers.

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