Verify ruling

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, yet the description adds substantial context they cannot: the ok/FAIL/n/a result semantics, that a missing well-known or unreachable RPC is n/a never FAIL, the honest disclosure that independent is always false and why, the 404 ruling_not_found refusal, and explicit Proves/Does-NOT-prove boundaries. This is exactly the kind of behavioral depth that exceeds structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and check list, and dense enough that most sentences carry value. It is long for a description, with mild redundancy between the check enumeration and the later Proves/Does-NOT-prove sections, but the complexity of a cryptographic-verification tool justifies the length.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description documents the full return shape ({ok, checks, independent, trustedSigner, witnesses, command, honesty}), refusal behavior, result tri-state semantics, and explicit limits on what verification proves. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly is 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; the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by imposing the exactly-one-of constraint between decisionUuid and bundleUrl, noting the host restriction, and clarifying that the anchor check only runs 'with rpcUrl' and never receives credentials. These are cross-parameter semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource plus the precise angle that distinguishes it from siblings: 'Recompute a Tribeunal ruling's proofs instead of trusting the server's word.' An agent can tell this apart from tribeunal_await_ruling (which merely fetches) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete selection rule — 'Pass exactly one of decisionUuid or bundleUrl (on this server's host)' — and names the source tools for decisionUuid (tribeunal_await_ruling or tribeunal_await_verdict). It frames the purpose (verify rather than trust) but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it relative to the fetch-only siblings, so a 4 rather than 5.

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