is my judge trustworthy

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the output dimensions: trust verdict categories, TPR/TNR intervals, catch/pass rates with 95% intervals, κ, measurement count, recency, drift status, and the one state-changing action. No contradiction with annotations.

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 information-dense and front-loads the main question, then lists the returned metrics in a compact, readable sequence. It is slightly longer than necessary due to the rhetorical opening and the long parenthetical list, but every element adds useful detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job listing what the caller will receive: verdict categories, confidence intervals, rates, κ, sample size, timing, drift status, and the one action that changes state. It does not fully clarify the return structure for the 'all judges' case or the exact meaning of 'the one action,' so it stops just short of complete.

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 covers the only parameter, criterion_id, 100%: 'One criterion's id for its full numbers; omit for every judge in the workspace.' The tool description repeats the same idea ('pass criterion_id') without adding new format, value, or interpretation details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (workspace judges) and the core purpose (assessing trustworthiness with verdict categories and metrics). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on trust measurement rather than settings or criteria management, though it opens with a rhetorical question instead of a direct action verb and the 'one criterion or all of them' phrasing is slightly ambiguous.

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 scoping guidance: pass criterion_id for one criterion or omit it for all judges. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_judge_settings or get_criterion, nor does it mention exclusions or when not to use it, so usage context is implied rather than fully explicit.

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