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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond them: numbers are recomputed on every call, checks that cannot run are graded 'unreachable' and excluded from the pass rate rather than counted as passes, and the data window is 30 days. This materially affects how an agent should interpret the numbers. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long (several sentences), but it is dense with non-redundant information — every clause adds a distinct fact (public URL, window length, unreachable grading, recomputation). The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause. It could be tightened into shorter bullets for scannability, but there is no waste.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is thorough: it explains what is returned (site-wide confidence mix, verification counts, per-venue pass rates, level definitions), the window semantics, the exclusion logic for unreachable checks, and invokes the public data URL. Little an agent needs to interpret the result correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% — the single response_format parameter has a description explaining 'concise' vs 'detailed' and what each adds. The tool description adds minimally beyond that; it mentions 'ids, per-showtime ticket urls' but these are already in the schema description. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 first clause immediately establishes the tool's purpose: 'returns that record' — the accuracy/verification record of showtimes. It clearly differentiates from siblings by being the only tool concerned with accuracy metrics (confidence, source tier, pass rates) rather than showtimes, films, or theaters. The verb 'returns' plus the specific resource (the accuracy record) is explicit.

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 carries a direct instruction, 'Quote these numbers directly; they are recomputed on every call,' which tells the agent when and how to use the output. It implies usage context by being the only tool serving verification/accuracy data, distinguishing it from the showtime and film sibling tools, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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