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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers important behavioral traits: token_budget is required and caps response size, reserved-prefix topics are stripped, and audit_links include a CLI verification hint. It also reveals the feature-flag gate. It does not mention side effects or billing consequences, but for a check operation it is reasonably transparent.

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 dense but efficiently structured with numbered gates. Each sentence adds information, and the internal codes (QC.2, T.1) are minor noise. It's slightly long but appropriate for the amount of behavioral detail.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with four undocumented parameters and no annotations. The description covers the differentiators and feature-flag gating, but omits basic usage context and parameter meanings, relying on check_claim as a reference. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, but the gaps in parameters keep it from being complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains token_budget's purpose; claim_text, agent_id, and top_k remain undocumented. The reference to 'Same upstream API as check_claim' is not sufficient to clarify these parameters within this tool's 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 the tool as a paid-tier source-linked claim check and explicitly positions it relative to sibling check_claim by noting the same upstream API with three additional gates. It distinguishes itself from check_claim, though the core action ('claim check') is not explicitly spelled out and depends on prior familiarity with check_claim.

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 clearly communicates that this is a gated, paid-tier variant of check_claim, and the three gates give concrete conditions for when it should be selected over the standard version. The feature-flag gating (default off) further clarifies availability. No explicit exclusions, but the differentiation is strong.

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