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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a vetted human expert performs the verification and lists the return components (verdict, red flags, positive signals, confidence score). This implies human-in-the-loop behavior and output structure, but does not mention timing, cost, or whether the operation is synchronous—leaving minor gaps.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second gives usage context and return values. It is front-loaded, contain useful examples, and avoids redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 2 parameters and an output schema. The description covers purpose, triggers, and return values. It misses some operational details like asynchronous behavior or how to retrieve results (though sibling get_result exists), and the output schema presumably documents return shape. Overall it is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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%, and both parameters (subject, context) are described in the schema. The description adds only mild nuance by stating context is used to clarify intent, which the schema already conveys. No additional parameter meaning is provided beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'verify whether an external source, project, or claim is trustworthy.' It clearly differentiates from sibling verify tools like verify_certificate and verify_reasoning_chain by focusing on external trustworthiness rather than certificates or reasoning. The examples (crypto project legitimacy, social media authenticity) further pin down the scope.

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 states when to call: 'when your output or planned action depends on an external claim you cannot independently verify.' It provides illustrative situations, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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