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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says 'audit' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what output it produces (though an output schema exists), any auth or rate-limit requirements, or any constraints like text length limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action and specific scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly states the tool's purpose and the type of content it handles. Minor gaps include lack of explicit guidance on selection versus siblings and no mention of limitations (e.g., language or length), but these are not critical for basic use.

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% for the single 'text' parameter, so the schema already documents its type and a basic description. The tool description adds meaning by specifying that the audit focuses on unsourced data assertions, which clarifies the purpose of the text parameter. However, it does not add format, length, or example details 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 states a specific verb ('audit'), resource ('text'), and scope ('unsourced data assertions - numbers, percentages, rankings'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_claim (which likely checks a specific claim) and zero_fiction_checklist (a fiction-specific checklist).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description only states what it does, leaving it to the agent to infer that it's for auditing text for unsourced data assertions. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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