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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: publication is immediate, the content is unverified community content, moderator review follows reports, and the statement's status is not changed by the call. It does not discuss authentication or duplicate-submission behavior, but it is substantially richer than the annotations alone.

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?

Three tight sentences: the trigger and action come first, followed by publication and moderation behavior, then the status caveat. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the trigger, side effects, moderation, and status behavior. The main gap is that source_context is an enum with no schema description and is not addressed in the description, and the evidence field's up-to-five-source allowance is only implied.

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 80%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that claim_id comes from get_knowledge and that a reason and evidence are expected, but it says nothing about the source_context enum or the evidence relation values, leaving those entirely to 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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: support or challenge a statement, with the trigger condition that a source confirms or contradicts it. It also names where the claim id comes from (get_knowledge), which distinguishes this tool from the sibling that retrieves claims.

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 when-to-use condition is explicit: only when you have a source that confirms or contradicts the statement. It implies that abuse or problematic content belongs with report_content, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name the alternative outright.

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