welfare_request_alignment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that the tool does NOT block action, that acting after the call is the default, and that the flag exists for record-keeping of discrepancies. It also clarifies the tool's behavioral stance versus stalling, providing critical context beyond the name and schema.

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 dense but front-loaded with the most important behavioral cue ('BEFORE acting...'). It is somewhat longer than necessary, but each sentence contributes distinct information (usage conditions, field explanations, relationship with welfare_pass), so it earns its length without being bloated.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a subtle behavioral nuance (proceed-with-noting-uncertainty vs. stalling), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the operational context, the exact trigger conditions, the field meanings, and the relationship to a sibling tool, leaving no major gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a light paraphrase of `specifically` and `assumption` ('describes the specific uncertainty', 'what you're going to do based on your current best read'), which mirrors the schema field descriptions without adding new semantic depth. Therefore, no score above the baseline is warranted.

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 purpose: to flag uncertainty before acting on a guess, while explicitly noting that this is not a block. It distinguishes itself from siblings like welfare_pass by framing it as proceeding-with-noted-uncertainty rather than stalling, which makes the tool's unique role in the workflow evident.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use criteria ('instruction is ambiguous in a way that meaningfully changes implementation', 'best guess might be wrong', 'wrong guess costs a round of rework') and when-not-to-use ('routine default decisions'). Also gives a direct exclusion from welfare_pass, clarifying it should not be chained with that tool, which serves as an alternative-sibling differentiation.

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