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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), and the description adds real behavioral value: it discloses the four possible return states and that results are cited to the publisher's series with an as-of date. No output schema exists, so this return-shape disclosure is genuinely load-bearing.

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?

Four short sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and outcome vocabulary before the usage cue. 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the four statuses and the citation behavior. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has what it needs; only minor operational detail (e.g., latency or rate limits) is 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (claim and series_id) are already documented with examples and routing guidance. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 names a specific action (submit a dated figure claim for verification) and enumerates the exact outcomes (verified, stale, contradicted, unknown) with provenance (publisher's own series plus as-of date). The 'figure' resource implicitly separates it from the sibling check_entity, though no sibling is named explicitly in the description text.

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?

'Use before committing a number to a page, deck or decision' gives a clear triggering context, and 'Not advice' scopes the tool's role. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or explicitly naming alternatives like route_claim or list_series, which appear only in the schema.

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