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 clearly states that the tool returns supporting and contradicting evidence with confidence scores, and implies a read-only verification by saying 'before committing.' It does not disclose all potential side effects or failure modes, but covers the key behavioral aspects.

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 sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, from the action verb to the decision rule.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, usage context, input parameter (claim_text), and output characteristics. The output schema handles return value details, and the description's short length is sufficient for the tool's simplicity. The only gap is the undocumented optional parameters.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains claim_text ('Pass your candidate answer as claim_text'), leaving limit and agent_id without any description. While these are optional and may be self-explanatory, the description does not add meaning for them beyond their names.

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 ('Verify') and resource ('a proposed answer against memory'), clearly distinguishing it as a pre-answer validation step. It also explains the core mechanism and mentions the candidate answer parameter, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('as a pre-answer gate') and provides actionable guidance on how to interpret results (investigate if contradicting evidence exists or support is weak). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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