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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose material behavior: it is an independent verifier agent, it returns a score, doubtful claims, and a verdict, and each call costs $0.03 USDC via x402. It doesn't say whether the charge applies on failure, or comment on latency/limits, but the pricing and output disclosure is substantial context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose plus outputs first, the usage trigger second, and cost/payment last. No sentence is redundant and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return payload (score, doubtful claims, verdict) and the payment mechanism. Parameters are fully covered by the schema. The remaining gap is failure/limitation behavior, which is minor for a 3-parameter verification tool.

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 texte, langue, and consigne are already documented in the schema, including the 12,000-char limit and fr/en options. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (verify/check) and resource (another agent's deliverable) and additionally names the returned artifacts — quality score 0-100, doubtful claims, and a valider/corriger/rejeter verdict. The purpose is immediately legible; it just doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the agora_* siblings by name.

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?

"Check another agent's work before paying for it" gives a concrete when-to-use trigger, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming an alternative sibling for adjacent checking needs, so it falls just under a 5.

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