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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses determinism ("no model"), the return shape ("ranked domain candidates with the literal words that matched"), and notable edge behaviors (crisis deferral, ambiguity returning candidates "never a single guess"). It stops short of describing auth needs or rate limits.

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 core question is front-loaded and each sentence carries behavioral information (determinism, return value, edge cases). Some overhead comes from the unexplained "[CHECK · door]" tag and the "agent twin of GET /find_verifier" note, which are marginal.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior — determinism, return format, and edge handling. It is nearly complete; only explicit query-format guidance would push it higher.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It characterizes the input as "a plain-language claim," which is meaningful, but adds no detail on format, length limits, or what makes a good query — only partial compensation.

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+resource: identifies which verify DOMAIN handles a plain-language claim, and flags it as the deterministic resolver with no model. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `verify` by positioning itself as the pre-step that feeds it. The bracketed tag "[CHECK · door]" is jargon that adds little, keeping this short of a 5.

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?

Implied workflow is present ("to confirm and pass to `verify`"), and edge cases are noted ("Crisis defers to real help"). However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives like `verify`, `resolve`, or `search` — the agent must infer the routing.

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