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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful matching semantics: canonical wording or full explicit negation can get a scoped governed verdict, while other matches return unresolved reviewed candidates with evidence. It does not detail response structure or auth, but adds substantial context beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by precise scope exclusions. Every clause earns its place without redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description explains return behavior and scope exclusions adequately. It could mention the input length limit, but the schema provides maxLength.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the input is pasted text and gives examples, but it omits the maxLength 2000 constraint and other formatting details. It partially compensates for the missing schema description.

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?

It states a specific verb (Fact-check) and resource (pasted text such as a social post, caption, or sentence), and describes the outcome. It does not name a sibling tool or distinguish itself from resolve_gi_claim, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 implied usage context (pasted text) and scope exclusions (no video retrieval, no individual medical advice). However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus resolve_gi_claim or other sibling tools.

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