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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses cost ($0.75), latency (~90s), the three lenses, and the payment-quote behavior. No destructive actions are implied, but authentication details for the payment step are inferred.

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 sentences, each with a clear purpose: first states the mechanism, second gives usage scenario, third explains payment behavior. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, when to use, and payment behavior. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not detail the return format (e.g., vote results, quote object). This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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%, but the description adds significant value: it explains the purpose of 'claim' (plainly stated), 'context' (why it matters), and crucially that 'payment' can be omitted to get a quote. This clarifies behavior beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool uses three independent adversarial verifiers attacking through evidence, logic, and currency and voting. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly recommending it for high-stakes claims where a single check is insufficient.

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 specifies when to use (high-stakes or contested claims) and provides guidance on omitting payment for a quote. It implies alternatives like a single check but does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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