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 what data is returned (processing status, per-algorithm results, verdict, evidence_report for completed single-image cases) and explains access control (API-key scoping vs anonymous public-by-link). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the verb 'Retrieve' implies this, and the absence of side-effect warnings is acceptable for a getter.

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 three sentences, each adding essential information: the core action, the return details for completed single-image verifications, and the access model. It is front-loaded with the primary verb, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it returns, the special case for image_only verifications, and authorization for both API-key and anonymous callers. No significant gaps remain.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly saying 'Retrieve a verification by id', directly tying the single required parameter verification_id to its purpose. The parameter name itself is self-explanatory, so even without detailed schema documentation, the agent can correctly use it.

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 begins with 'Retrieve a verification by id', a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this from sibling listing tools like list_verifications. It further specifies the exact data returned: processing status, per-algorithm authenticity results, and for completed single-image verifications, a verdict and evidence_report.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: to retrieve a single verification by its ID. It also provides important usage constraints by stating it works for both API-key callers (scoped to their account) and anonymous callers (accessing public-by-link verifications). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which would elevate it to a 5.

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