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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals that a non-final job returns a provisional response with http_status 202, which is important and non-obvious. It also describes the response contents. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a retrieval tool the key behavior is covered.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional provisional behavior is stated compactly in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 description covers the main return contents and the provisional 202 behavior, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it leaves parameter semantics unexplained and gives no guidance on polling or checking finality via the status sibling, so the overall context is not 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% and the description does not mention job_id or job_token at all. The names are mildly self-explanatory, but there is no explanation of their relationship, format, or how to obtain them, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the final structured verification answer, enumerating typed facts, evidence excerpts, timestamps, confidence, and limitations. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_verification_status, which presumably returns only status information, and from the purchase/quote siblings.

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 implies this is the tool to call to retrieve the full verification result once a job exists, and it warns that a non-final job yields a provisional 202 response. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus get_verification_status, nor does it mention checking status before calling.

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