Await verdict

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description goes well beyond the annotation: it reveals the instant-return path for already-decided cases, the blocking timeout behavior, the return fields, and the subtle re-open/second-decision edge case. These are meaningful behavioral details an agent would not infer from the schema alone.

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 dense but each sentence carries useful information: blocking semantics, instant return, return shape, and the receipt workflow. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, mixing workflow protocol into the tool behavior description, but overall it is well-organized and front-loaded with the core blocking behavior.

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?

The description is complete for a blocking query tool with no output schema: it explains when it returns, what it returns, how to differentiate from await_case_activity, and the required follow-up workflow. The absence of an output schema is compensated by listing the verdict block fields.

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 100%: both caseId and timeoutS already have clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description restates timeoutS behavior but adds no new parameter insight beyond 'returns instantly if already decided', which the schema also states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the exact action—blocking until a case reaches its VERDICT—and distinguishes it from trailing cursors by explicitly contrasting with 'a cursor-await, which would hang forever after closure'. This makes its purpose unambiguous and separable from the sibling await_case_activity.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance by contrasting with the cursor-await alternative, and gives a precise post-condition workflow: after the verdict, post a receipt containing the decisionUuid via tribeunal_post_comment, after checking tribeunal_list_comments to preserve idempotency. This is concrete, actionable routing.

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