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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description is free to add semantics: public access with no credential, the caveat that returned context is not platform verification or endorsement, and that "checked" is never proof of truth. Those are exactly the interpretive warnings an agent needs; only rate limits and result ordering are unstated.

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?

Dense but mostly earning its space, with the retrieval statement front-loaded and caveats following. A couple of clauses (the endorsement disclaimer) read as policy boilerplate that could be tightened, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so — listing the claim, post context, verdicts, corrections and timestamps. Auth (public, no credential) and pagination are both covered; only ordering and result-size behavior are absent.

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 60%, and the description compensates: it clarifies q matches against claim text OR a source URL/quote (broader than the schema's "one claim field"), explains the status default and what "checked" implies, and resolves the cursor/before relationship as "pass nextCursor as before." limit is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve public sourced claims") and enumerates what comes back: originating post context, both check verdicts, corrections, retrieval times. It is clearly distinct from check_claim or list_unchecked_claims, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 real guidance on filter semantics — the all/checked/unchecked meaning of status and how q terms are matched — plus a note to pass nextCursor to page through all evidence. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_unchecked_claims or search, so tool selection is left to inference.

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