fast_judgment_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. "Read" establishes this is a non-mutating lookup and "persisted" hints the record must already exist, but it says nothing about authorization needs, error behavior for unknown ids, or what the fallback disposition implies operationally.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its returned disposition are stated immediately. It is dense with domain jargon but not padded.

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 description does say what is retrieved. However, with no annotations and no usage context, an agent still lacks the prerequisites and the distinction from the record/assess siblings to invoke this confidently.

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 gives 0% description coverage for judgment_id, so the description must compensate. It only implies the id identifies "one persisted ... judgment"; it never states the id format or where an agent obtains it, leaving the single required parameter under-specified.

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 ("Read") and resource ("one persisted FJD/1 progressive judgment") plus what it returns ("confidence/fallback disposition"). This differentiates it from siblings like assess_fast_judgment and record_fast_judgment, which write rather than read, though the "FJD/1" jargon is unexplained.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g., that a judgment must first be recorded), and no named alternative among the many sibling status tools. The word "persisted" weakly implies a prior write, but nothing is explicit.

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