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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: the three possible verification outcomes and that, when the claim differs, it reports 'what the record says instead.' This is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether the tool answers its question.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and examples of the claim types. The final sentence about effective dates is motivational context rather than strictly necessary for invoking the tool, but it does not waste much space or obscure the main guidance.

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 only 3 parameters, 2 required, annotations covering safety, and an output schema present, the description plus schema is fully sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose, the kind of claims it handles, and the types of answers it returns, with no critical gap for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents each parameter with examples, including the optional `field` behavior. The description reinforces these ideas but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check a claim about a final rule ... against the Federal Register record.' It also explains the result taxonomy ('matches a stored value, appears only in the verbatim quote, or differs'), which clearly distinguishes this verification tool from the retrieval/list sibling tools.

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 gives clear usage context: use this when you have a claim about a rule's effective date, agency, or CFR parts and you want to verify it 'instead of trusting it.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but sibling tools are clearly different in purpose (retrieval vs. verification), so no exclusion is truly needed.

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