Decide

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: results are advisory and do not authorize or execute actions, input limits are stated, overflow is not silently truncated, and failures use a compact error body with code, message, retryable, and request_id. This is strong disclosure for a read-only local decision tool.

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 front-loaded with the core operation, then proceeds through semantics, limits, failure behavior, and the upstream contract. Each sentence adds actionable information, and there is no filler or repetition of structured annotations.

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 nested schema and the presence of an output schema, the description supplies the remaining operational context an agent needs: question-type semantics, cardinality and size limits, non-truncation behavior, error shape, advisory-only status, and the upstream contract link. Nothing important for correct invocation appears missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic meaning about question types that the schema does not carry. In particular it explains that 'noul' returns a probability rather than a boolean verdict, that 'choice' returns probabilities over labelled alternatives, and that 'score' follows an ordered rubric starting at the lowest level.

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: evaluate caller-supplied evidence against caller-supplied fixed questions using a configured local decision model. It also immediately clarifies that results are advisory and do not authorize or execute actions, which makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the evaluation framing and by the advisory/no-action boundary, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only sibling, bridge_status, is unrelated, so the lack of routing guidance is less harmful but still leaves selection context implicit.

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