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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the explicit-user-approval requirement for the submitting client. This aligns with the user_approved parameter and is the kind of auth/approval constraint the rubric credits. No contradiction with annotations exists, though post-resolution effects are left undisclosed.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first states the operation, the second a binding constraint, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, though the second could arguably have been spent on parameter documentation given the 0% schema coverage.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, 4 required inputs, and no output schema, the definition is incomplete: what rationale should contain, how assertion_id is obtained, how idempotency_key works, and what resolution changes about the assertion are all unaddressed. The description covers purpose and one approval constraint but leaves the agent guessing on major inputs.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 5 undocumented parameters — it barely does. It alludes to assertion_id and user_approved ('its own contested claim', 'explicit user approval') but leaves rationale content, idempotency_key purpose, and the decision enum semantics effectively unexplained. Even the allusions are indirect rather than explicit parameter mappings.

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 uses a specific verb pair ('Accept or reject') with a clear resource ('a contested location assertion'), making the operation immediately understandable. The qualifier 'contested' distinguishes this from creating assertions (assert_location) and from resolving subject classifications (resolve_subject, resolve_subject_type), though it does not name those siblings explicitly. A 5 would require explicit sibling differentiation, so 4 is appropriate.

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?

The second sentence establishes real usage context — the submitting client cannot resolve its own contested claim without explicit user approval — which signals the scenario this tool serves. However, no alternative tools are named and no exclusion criteria are given, despite a crowded sibling set of resolve_* and record_resolution tools that an agent must distinguish between. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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