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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('Costs 1 credit, charged only when it returns') and specific detection behavior (e.g., Reddit removals), but it omits permissions, failure modes, and what the verification result contains.

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 a compact paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then adds cost and exclusion details. Every sentence carries useful information, though the parenthetical examples could be slightly more scannable.

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 tool with one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain at least the shape of a verification result or how to source the actionId. It covers scope and cost well but leaves output and parameter semantics entirely unaddressed.

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 single parameter 'actionId' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it beyond implying 'one recorded action.' It does not state the expected format, source, or how to obtain a valid actionId.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('one recorded action from the outside'), then gives concrete examples of what can be verified (PR state, live page, listing rel, Reddit post). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like check_content or tracking_check.

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 implies when to use it by listing verifiable action types, and it explicitly excludes index requests and drafts ('cannot be verified by us and cost nothing'). However, it names no alternative tools or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool instead.

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