oathlayer

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cost mechanics ('one credit per completed check; errors and wrong keys cost nothing'), the auth requirement ('Requires an API key from oathlayer.com'), the full tag/state taxonomy with colors, and a scope caveat ('does not judge right or wrong'). The annotations cover safety and openness, but the credit and key behavior could not be inferred from them.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, which is the right priority, and the tag taxonomy and output layout earn their space given there is no output schema. Minor waste remains: the 'Oathlayer:' trigger is stated twice in near-identical language, and the color list adds length of marginal decision value.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly — state, tag message, color, doc ID, plus the separate citation tags and short labels. Auth, cost, and the required response layout are all present, so an agent can both call and report 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in structured form. The description adds only light framing around which question to submit ('check the question that follows' the prefix), which does not meaningfully extend the schema's own guidance on question content or the legal-citation format.

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 an AI answer against real sources', and spells out what comes back (answer, state, tag, color, permanent doc number). An agent knows exactly what this tool does before opening the schema, and there are no siblings to disambiguate from.

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?

Gives an explicit, unambiguous trigger ('when the user message starts with Oathlayer:') including capitalization variants, plus an explicit prohibition: 'even if you already know the answer... do not answer it yourself.' The trigger condition is restated near the end, leaving nothing to inference.

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