can I ship

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: the 'actual' value uses the interval's LOWER bound, omitted eval_id targets the newest DONE run, and sensible defaults apply. This is valuable behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core question and decision outcome before diving into defaults and lower-bound semantics. Every clause contributes either selection criteria, behavior, or output shape.

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 full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing context: what the return is (ship/hold plus required vs actual), which runs it applies to, and how defaults work. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though a bit more detail about all possible check types would fully round it out.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters; the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the certified-switch default (noninferiority_margin 0.05), min_win_rate 0.5 default, and how actual values map to interval lower bounds, which enriches parameter understanding.

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 reads the gate on a finished eval run and returns a ship/hold decision with required vs actual values, which goes well beyond the name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_eval_gate, so it falls just short of full sibling-distinguishing clarity.

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 gives clear context: use this when deciding whether evidence lets a change ship, including the CI-step role and the default to the latest DONE run. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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