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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the verification process and the three possible return statuses, including the concept of fuzzy matching and citation. It also highlights the tool's role in preventing hallucination, which adds behavioral context beyond simple read-only semantics.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the function and outcomes, and the second gives a clear imperative usage instruction. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the main inputs (quote), the decision logic (exact/fuzzy/not_found), and a strong use-case directive. The only minor omission is detailed behavior of the fuzzy threshold, but this is adequately covered by the schema and the output description.

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?

The description does not directly explain the 'fuzzy_threshold' parameter, relying on the schema's minimal 'Fuzzy Threshold' label. It does mention fuzzy matching in the output, but without explaining how the threshold affects results, the description adds limited value beyond the schema. The 'text' parameter is well-covered by both schema and description context.

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 clearly states the tool's function: verifying whether a candidate quote attributed to Rumi's Masnavi actually appears. It names the specific verb 'check', the resource 'Rumi's Masnavi', and distinct outcomes ('exact', 'fuzzy', 'not_found'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like 'search' or 'get_section'.

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 description explicitly directs when to use the tool with 'USE THIS BEFORE QUOTING RUMI to avoid hallucination', providing clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, which would elevate it to a 5.

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