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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: deterministic extractors, engine verification, a single sealed coverage report with per-claim quote/verdict/trail, conservative extraction of only unambiguous patterns, and explicit disclosure of how many claims were checked. It explicitly disclaims guessing or implying full coverage — exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause adds information (claim types, verification, report shape, conservatism). It is long but largely earns its length, though the parenthetical claim-type list is heavy.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description fully covers the return shape (sealed coverage report with per-claim quote, verdict, trail) and the behavioral limits. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the seal produces 'ONE sealed coverage report' that is 're-checkable', giving the seal parameter purpose the schema's terse 'mint a re-checkable seal' only hints at.

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 (audit) and resource (a whole text), then enumerates the concrete claim types checked (sums, percentages, hourly/annual pay, compound interest, rule-of-72, etc.). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like verify, find_verifier, or attest_record.

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 the tool applies (auditing a whole text for quantitative claims) but never states when to prefer it over siblings such as verify or find_verifier, nor any explicit exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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