Web Evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose cost ('This tool is free'), which is useful and not available in structured data, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or rate limits.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and cost appended. Every clause carries information.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (tools, prices, research limits) and that it is free. Only return-shape details are absent, which is a minor gap for this complexity level.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; per the rubric this is a baseline 4. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (verification tools, prices, research limits), so the purpose is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the verify_claim* siblings, which is the main thing keeping it from 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?

The mention that the tool is free hints that it can be called freely to inspect tiers before choosing a verification tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or naming of alternatives. Usage must be inferred from the sibling names alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the per-call cost ($0.05 USDC on Base) and the evidence-coverage profile ('balanced'), which are useful. But it omits payment mechanics, return behavior, read-only status, rate limits, and error handling for an 11-parameter tool.

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 short sentences, front-loading the tier/coverage then the cost. No filler; every sentence carries information. Structure is clean even if content is sparse.

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 11 parameters, one required, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too thin. It gives cost and a vague coverage label but leaves parameter behavior, usage, and return semantics entirely unspecified.

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 18% (claim and asOf only), so the description must compensate for nine undocumented parameters. It adds no parameter meaning, no defaults, no explanation of sourcePolicy, maxSources, freshnessHours, etc. This is the key gap.

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?

States a specific resource (claim verification) and a tier qualifier ('Standard') with 'balanced evidence coverage,' which implicitly distinguishes it from quick/deep/research siblings. However, it never names the siblings or spells out what 'balanced' means, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tier versus verify_claim_quick, verify_claim_deep, verify_claim_research, or list_verification_tiers. The word 'Standard' hints at a default tier but the description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses a real behavioral trait — a per-call cost of $0.12 USDC on Base — plus a source ceiling, but says nothing about auth, latency, failure behavior, or return shape for what is clearly a complex paid operation.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the cost detail. Every clause carries information.

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 11 parameters, 18% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation. It never explains the source-policy/domain-freshness controls or what a verification response contains, leaving major gaps for a complex, costly operation.

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 18% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The phrase "up to 15 cited sources" loosely hints at the maxSources/minimumSources defaults, but sourcePolicy, language, jurisdiction, allowedDomains, blockedDomains, freshnessHours, and includeConflicts are left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Deep verification") and scopes it to "compound or contested claims using up to 15 cited sources", which hints at differentiation from the lighter siblings. It does not explicitly name verify_claim_quick or verify_claim_research, so the agent must infer the tier boundary rather than being told.

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?

"Compound or contested claims" implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-not or alternative routing among the four sibling verification tools. The agent is left to infer that simpler claims should use verify_claim_quick and deeper research should use verify_claim_research.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses cost ($0.02 USDC on Base per call) and a source cap of 3, which are real behavioral facts. But it omits payment/auth mechanics, what the result looks like (verdict vs citations), and failure behavior, leaving significant gaps for a mutation/paid tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the cost. Nothing is wasted and the key constraints are easy to scan.

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 an 11-parameter, paid, unannotated tool with no output schema, this description is far too thin. It doesn't explain the interaction between the fixed 3-source cap and the source-control parameters, nor what an agent receives back or what payment/preconditions apply.

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 coverage is only 18% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It only gestures at source count ('up to 3 cited sources'), and that conflicts with the schema's maxSources (max 20)/minimumSources fields, while asOf, jurisdiction, sourcePolicy, allowedDomains, blockedDomains, freshnessHours, language, and includeConflicts get no explanation at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('verify a claim') plus the distinguishing trait 'quick' and 'narrow claim'. However, it never explicitly names the siblings (verify_claim, verify_claim_deep, verify_claim_research) or the threshold that separates quick from deep/research, so differentiation is left to inference from the name.

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?

'Quick' and 'narrow claim' imply the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus verify_claim_deep/research, no guidance on when the 3-source cap is insufficient, and no prerequisites (payment, wallet). Usage is implied only.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the per-call cost and payment chain (Base, USDC), and the size of the search/evidence budget, but it omits return format, permission requirements, rate limits, and other operational traits.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the cost detail follows efficiently.

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 complex verification tool with 11 parameters, low schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not tell the agent enough to invoke the tool correctly or understand its results.

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 18% across 11 parameters, and the description provides no parameter meaning whatsoever. It does not mention asOf, language, jurisdiction, sourcePolicy, domain filters, freshness, or conflict handling, leaving the agent entirely dependent on an under-documented 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 purpose: claim verification with a research-grade, largest search and evidence budget. It implies a higher tier than siblings via 'largest,' but does not explicitly name alternatives such as verify_claim_deep or verify_claim_quick.

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 mentions cost ($0.25 USDC) and the largest budget, which hints at when the tool is appropriate, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to the sibling verification tools.

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