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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it is transparent: it discloses plain-HTTPS fetching, the limited scope of checks, the honest labeling of results, and sandbox/testnet semantics with Ed25519-signed deliverables. This goes well beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, the operational behavior, the key limitation, and relevant environment context. Every clause adds value, and no content is redundant with the schema.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what it reports, what it cannot do, and the sandbox environment. It stops short of describing the exact response format, but the two reported outcomes—evidence resolution and artifact-text presence—are clearly stated.

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 only 50%, but the description adds meaning by explaining how evidence URLs are used and what expected_text means. quote_id is already documented in the schema, and work_claim is self-evident from the tool's purpose. Some nested fields such as label remain unexplained, preventing a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Audit a claim that work was performed.' It then clarifies that this is an evidence-resolution check rather than independent verification, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like claim_verification or citation_audit.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: checking evidence URLs and expected artifact text. It also provides an explicit exclusion—'It CANNOT independently verify that work happened'—so an agent knows not to use it for final verification, though it does not name sibling alternatives directly.

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