ewp_warrant_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burdenency. It discloses key behavior: it returns five normative axes, does not persist a warrant, and demotes trusted origins for inline views unless the caller holds the ingest role and sets ingest_attestation. This is meaningful transparency, though it omits some details like required permissions for stored views or error behaviors.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value, and every sentence adds distinct information. It is compact without being vague.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to carry more weight. It does not explain what the five normative axes are, which parameters apply to stored vs inline views, or the roles/requirements for policy_id, policy_version, and proposition_id. This is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies evaluated_at, view/view_id, and ingest_attestation, but leaves policy_id, policy_version, proposition_id, and the view object semantics unexplained. With 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: evaluating an EvidenceView at a given time and returning five normative axes. It is not a tautology and gives a clear sense of the operation, though it does not name or explicitly distinguish sibling tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to evaluate a stored or inline EvidenceView at evaluated_at, with the note that it does not persist the warrant. It also gives a conditional usage caveat for inline views and ingest_attestation, but it does not explicitly describe when to prefer this over sibling tools.

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