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.