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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Extract + probe URLs + return trust score' without explaining what 'probe' entails (e.g., network requests, status checks), how the trust score is computed, or any side effects/rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs network I/O.

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 very brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and a non-trivial output. It omits essential details, making it more a terse summary than an effective, appropriately sized description.

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 the tool's complexity (extraction + probing + trust score) and the lack of parameter descriptions, output schema, or annotations, the description is far from complete. The agent is left to guess how to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'text' or 'probe_urls' parameters. The agent receives no guidance on what these parameters mean, what format 'text' should be in, or how 'probe_urls' affects behavior.

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 clearly states the tool's function: extract citations, probe URLs, and return a trust score. This succinctly combines the operations of the sibling tools, distinguishing it as the integrated verification tool.

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 implies usage when both extraction and probing are needed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like extract_citations or probe_url, nor does it provide when/when-not guidance. The combination of 'extract' and 'probe' suggests a full verification workflow, but the agent must infer this.

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