assess_fast_judgment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the non-persistence guarantee and explicitly bounds the output's authority ('never grants truth, Evidence, assurance, verification or mutation authority'). It does not cover auth requirements or the meaning of high_impact/review_confidence, but the side-effect and authority boundaries are unusually well stated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by usage then the authority disclaimer. No filler; each sentence adds a distinct layer.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the conceptual boundaries are covered well. However, for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the complete absence of parameter-level guidance leaves a real gap.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning — and it explains none of them. The BOOL/SCORE/CHOICE mention loosely hints at the shape of `decisions`, but purpose, source, model_ref, high_impact, review_confidence and use_signal_confidence are entirely undefined.

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?

States a specific verb pair (validate and gate) on a specific resource (provider-neutral typed fast judgments), and the qualifier 'without persisting them' sharply distinguishes it from the sibling record_fast_judgment. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the agent must infer the routing from the phrase alone.

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?

'Use for cheap BOOL/SCORE/CHOICE signals such as routing, triage, relevance or activation' gives concrete context for when the tool applies. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. record_fast_judgment for persistence), which is the only gap.

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