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.