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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', 'Free', and 'safe to call repeatedly', and explains the HTTP 202 provisional behavior. No contradictions.

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 bit verbose (e.g., repeats provisional/polling concepts) but remains logically structured and easy to parse. Slightly tighter wording would be ideal.

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?

Without an output schema, the description enumerates what the response contains (facts, evidence, timestamps, confidence, freshness, limitations), and explains polling behavior. This fully equips the agent to handle the result.

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 descriptions are detailed: both parameters come from purchase_quote, job_token is a bearer token, and it warns about non-recoverability. This adds meaningful context beyond the basic 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 clearly states the tool retrieves verification results with specific content (typed facts, evidence, timestamps, etc.) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_verification_status (status only) and purchase_quote (creates jobs).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to call (after purchase, poll until 200) and mentions the alternative get_verification_status for checking terminal state. Also explains provisional vs. final responses.

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