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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so 'Read-only' in the description earns nothing. What does add value is the disclosure of the returned content areas (ranking criteria, research status definitions, verification criteria version, research-ledger arbiter and cost), which tells an agent exactly what evidence it will obtain before committing to a re-verification workflow.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and purpose in a single dense sentence, then closed with a short safety note. The parenthetical enumeration is jargon-heavy ('research-ledger arbiter and cost') but each item is a distinct content promise rather than 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to establish scope and audience, which it does. Sibling differentiation for when to prefer explanation over data queries is the one remaining gap.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the schema carries the entire burden and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for 0 params applies. No parameter-level guidance is needed or possible here.

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?

Specific verb ('Explain') plus a specific resource (PRUVIQ's measurement and labeling methodology), with an enumerated content list that makes it unmistakably the documentation tool rather than a data-retrieval sibling.

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 purpose clause 'give the exact steps and public tools to re-verify a claim yourself' supplies a clear when-to-use context. It stops short of naming alternatives such as get_strategy_verdict or get_daily_rankings and noting that those should be used when raw data, not explanation, is needed.

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