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 the verification process, the returned fields, tag meanings and colors, citation-specific tags and labels, billing behavior (one credit per completed check, errors and wrong keys free), API key requirement, and the important boundary that Oathlayer reports findings without judging right or wrong.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then organizes return states, citation tags, billing, and requirements. It is lengthy, but the density is justified because there is no output schema and the agent needs the tag/color semantics to interpret results.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation. It covers inputs, output fields, tag semantics, citation-specific results, cost behavior, and authentication requirements.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context around sending a question and legal-citation verification, but it does not materially extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource: verify an AI answer against real sources. It explains the full workflow—send a question, Oathlayer answers and checks it independently, then returns a verification result—with enough detail that an agent can distinguish this as a source-verification tool rather than a general Q&A tool.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use it before anyone acts on an AI answer, it works on any topic and any model, and each completed check costs one credit. It does not name explicit exclusions or alternatives, but there are no sibling tools, so the guidance is largely complete for its scope.

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