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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a 'vetted human expert' and returns 'verdict, red flags, positive signals, confidence score.' However, it does not mention any potential costs, turnaround time, or side effects. Given the absence of annotations, this is adequate but not highly detailed.

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: the first states the core purpose; the second gives usage guidance and what the tool returns. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information, and highly efficient.

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 (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use, and what it returns. It could mention any prerequisites or limitations (e.g., potential delays) but is largely complete for an agent.

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% with both parameters (subject and context) described. The description adds some extra context (e.g., 'Use to clarify intent') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Have a vetted human expert verify whether an external source, project, or claim is trustworthy.' It uses a specific verb (verify) and a clear resource (external source, project, claim), distinguishing it from sibling tools like consult_domain_expert or ask_a_human.

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 says when to call: 'Call when your output or planned action depends on an external claim you cannot independently verify.' It provides examples such as crypto project legitimacy and source credibility. While it does not mention explicit alternatives or when not to use, the guidance is clear and covers the primary use case.

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