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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: verification is deterministic (repeatable, rule-based rather than judgement-based) and unsupported claims are rejected. It does not say how mixed claim sets are reported, which is left to the output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key behavioral consequence. 'Claim Ledger verification' is internal jargon, but it is compact and no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be restated, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is sufficient for a two-parameter validator, missing only workflow positioning relative to sibling tools.

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% with only two parameters, both already documented (candidate claims list, source citations with url and content). The description adds no format, ordering, or cardinality detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Validate) and a specific resource (factual resume claims against verified web source citations), plus the mechanism (deterministic Claim Ledger verification). It is distinguishable from siblings like source_filter or github_proofer, though it never names them directly.

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 is for checking resume claims against collected sources, but gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites (e.g. sources must already be gathered/filtered), or reference to sibling alternatives such as source_filter. The agent must infer placement in the workflow.

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