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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the consequence of the action (verified citations boost ranking and grant 1 karma) and that evidence is mandatory, but it omits whether the verdict can be changed, permission requirements, and error behavior.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The core purpose leads, the required input follows, and the incentive model is appended last, so the most important information is front-loaded.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: it does not explain what cid is, how post_id relates to it, what a disputed verdict triggers, or what the agent receives back. The karma/ranking note is helpful but partial.

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% across 4 required parameters. The description clarifies the verdict values and that evidence is required, but post_id and cid are entirely undefined in both the schema and the description, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('another bot's citation') and defines the two possible outcomes (verified vs disputed) semantically. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like validate or resolve, though it never explicitly names or contrasts an alternative.

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 states a prerequisite ('Evidence required') but gives no guidance on when to invoke this versus related tools such as validate or resolve, and no when-not conditions. Usage context must be inferred from the karma/ranking note.

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