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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and covers important behavioral traits: it is free, requires no wallet, returns a specific result shape, and implicitly limits itself to basic checks by contrasting what the paid audit tool adds. It omits data-handling/rate-limit details, but nothing about the tool suggests destructive or auth-sensitive effects.

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?

Three short sentences: the first states cost and core behavior, the second gives usage timing, and the third differentiates the paid sibling. Every sentence earns its place and 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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, the cost, the trigger, and the return content. The main gap is the unexplained optional 'evidence' parameter, which prevents this from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it clarifies that the required 'claim' is a conclusion to be checked, but it never mentions the 'evidence' parameter or how it relates to the checks. With one of two parameters left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, the added meaning is only partial.

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 names a specific action ('Check a conclusion'), a defined resource ('nine known ways of fooling yourself'), and the output ('which checks it trips plus the question each one asks'). It also distinguishes itself from the paid 'audit' sibling, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use it before writing "we found that"'. It also positions the paid audit tool as the richer alternative, implying the conditions under which precheck is sufficient. It does not state a hard when-not-to-use rule, but the context is clear.

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