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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly states 'Judges only from retrieved sources — never fabricates' and defines the semantics of 'contradicted' vs 'unverified', which are crucial behavioral traits.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, output structure in the second, and semantic clarifications in the remainder. Every sentence adds value without padding.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return object (verdict, score, reasoning, sources) and defines the judgment criteria. It also covers the absence-of-evidence case, making it complete for an agent to understand expected behavior.

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%, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It does not explain the 'count' parameter's range, but the schema already documents it (albeit with an internal inconsistency between max=255 and description max=10).

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Verify a factual claim against multiple live web sources (Brave).' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like ping or structured_brief_synthesizer by focusing on verification with a defined output structure.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a factual claim needs to be checked against live sources. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for not using it, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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