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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operations (counting sources, scoring, attaching evidence) but does not explicitly declare the tool as read-only, mention any side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the output beyond the implied 'side by side' view. This is a moderate level of transparency, covering the main actions but omitting potential operational details.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Verify a crypto news claim') and then efficiently lists the three key actions without redundancy. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool, and there is no wasted wording, earning a high score for conciseness and structure.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description provides a reasonable hint at the results (count of sources, corroboration score, and market evidence side by side). It also implies the integration with 'RYO analyze_token evidence,' which gives context on the data flow. However, it does not clarify the exact output structure or any prerequisites (e.g., token symbols needed), leaving some ambiguity for an agent expecting a precise return format. Still, it is fairly complete for a verification tool with simple 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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds some context (e.g., symbol related to market evidence, max_results for search results) but largely repeats what the schema states. It does not introduce new syntax or format details, so the value added over the schema is marginal, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Verify') and a resource ('a crypto news claim'), and distinguishes its action by detailing three concrete steps: counting independent sources, scoring corroboration, and attaching market evidence. This differentiates it from the siblings (narrative_convergence, price_crosscheck, technicals_crosscheck) which address other analytical angles, and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides a clear context for use ('Verify a crypto news claim') and describes the workflow, so an agent knows when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for exclusions, so it falls short of the highest bar that includes direct comparisons to siblings.

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