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

The description is unusually explicit: it reveals the deterministic gate, the one-retry-then-refusal behavior, that narratives are 'never patched,' and that invented numbers reject the whole draft. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations and gives the agent accurate expectations about failures and guarantees.

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 dense sentences front-load the core purpose, then pack the verification behavior and output promise with no filler. Every clause adds operational value: input options, safety mechanism, retry limit, and the reported claim count.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, validation order, retry/refusal behavior, and the fact that the response reports the number of checked claims. It stops short of specifying the full response shape or how the prose itself is returned, so a small gap remains.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds a little context by distinguishing stored decisions (decision_id) from inline decision objects and noting validation, but it does not substantially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 opens with 'The Verified Narrative: client- or advisor-ready prose for a stored decision (decision_id) or an inline decision object,' naming a specific deliverable, source, and inputs. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like verify_claim by framing the output as a full narrative with a verification pass.

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 implies the tool is for producing an audience-ready narrative of a decision and lists the two accepted input forms, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent is left to infer usage from purpose.

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