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

The annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context that a human agent is physically dispatched in Japan to observe facts, which is behavior not captured by annotations. It omits operational traits like turnaround time, cost, or what a response contains, keeping it at an adequate 3.

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?

A single sentence that is tightly front-loaded with the trigger phrase 'Use when', followed by the condition and concrete examples. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

With three parameters fully described in the schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the main remaining gap is what the tool actually produces or triggers (e.g., dispatch of a verifier, expected response, relationship to prepare_verification_request). The description covers invocation conditions but not the outcome, leaving it merely adequate.

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 location, objective, and evidence_requirements are already documented in the schema, setting a baseline of 3. The description's examples of verifiable facts loosely map to the objective parameter but add no syntax, format, or constraint detail 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 clear verb+resource: verify a current physical-world fact via someone on the ground in Japan. It goes beyond the vague name 'check_service_fit' by listing concrete examples (store stock, shelf price, opening status). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from its sibling prepare_verification_request, so it falls short of a 5.

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 precondition for use: 'after web research or APIs are insufficient', which tells the agent when this tool is warranted. However, it never names the alternative (prepare_verification_request) or states when-not to use it, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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