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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully discloses that verification is deterministic and free, but it does not describe side effects, failure behavior, authentication needs, or whether the original input is required for meaningful verification.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the key value proposition. It is concise, though slightly too brief given the tool's parameter complexity.

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 five parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence is insufficient. The description lacks enough context about how parameters interact, what a valid verification entails, and what the caller should expect in return.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain outcome_type, options, or criteria, and only loosely reinforces the input/output relationship already visible in 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 identifies a specific action ('re-verification') and resource ('an Outcome result') and adds the key differentiator of being free and deterministic. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the distinction from credit-consuming operations like outcome_run is clear.

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 the tool should be used when an Outcome result already exists and needs re-verification without consuming Nexus credits. However, it provides no explicit selection criteria, no 'when not to use' guidance, and does not mention alternatives like outcome_run or outcome_quote.

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