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

Annotations declare openWorldHint and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds context they don't carry: the 5-cents-per-citation charge, a 5-cent floor, billing against the Hyperresearch balance, and that the call returns a verification id rather than the results. It doesn't say whether a failed verification is still billed, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the cost constraint directly behind it. Some cost detail duplicates the title's parenthetical, which is minor waste but not enough to hurt clarity.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description correctly avoids explaining return values and covers the async handoff and pricing. It leaves out what the eventual verification result contains and whether the agent must poll, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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%, so every parameter already has its own documented semantics, including the sample modes and idempotency behavior. The description only restates the per-full-read cost and adds no meaning for run_id, sample, or sources beyond what the schema says.

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 and resource: verify citation-sentence bindings in a document against sources. That is concrete enough to separate it from check_source and search_claims, but it never names a sibling to route against, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that it returns a verification id hints at an asynchronous follow-up with verification_status or verification_result, and the pricing implies this is a paid depth check. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-check_source guidance.

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