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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable operational context by stating that an API key or wallet token is required in X-API-Key or Authorization: Bearer form, which is not present in the schema or annotations.

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 two compact sentences. It front-loads the usage trigger, follows with the core operation, and ends with the authentication prerequisite without unnecessary repetition.

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 single-purpose read-only validation tool, the description covers purpose, trigger scenarios, and auth requirements. However, with no output schema, it does not indicate what the validation result contains, such as whether it returns sources, confidence, or a simple confirmation.

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?

There is only one parameter, article_id, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description implies that an article is being validated, but it does not explain the parameter's role, expected UUID format, or how to obtain an article ID, so it does little to compensate for the missing schema 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 states a specific function: multi-source validation of an article's claims with entity correlation. An agent can understand the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate this from nearby siblings such as muhabbit_confidence or muhabbit_record_verify.

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 gives explicit trigger questions ('is this confirmed?' and 'who else is reporting this?') that map directly to when this tool should be used. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools, but the usage context is clear.

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