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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the bar is lower; the description adds significant behavioral context: the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR + XBRL vs grounded pipeline), the meaning of could_not_verify with verification_error (not evidence), the unsupported verdict meaning, and that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls. This exceeds the annotation-provided safety profile and gives the agent crucial handling instructions.

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 somewhat long but densely packed: it opens with example intents, then gives usage guidance, processing paths, return values, a high-importance caveat, and an efficiency note. It is well-structured with clear breaks, though it could be trimmed slightly without loss of essential 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values; it does so by listing the six verdicts, the actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also explains the two tricky verdicts (could_not_verify and unsupported) in detail, and covers the two processing paths. For a tool with this complexity, the description is highly complete.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax beyond what's in the schema; it only mentions 'exact percent-delta math' which indirectly relates to tolerance but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's description of tolerance_pct.

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 verb+resource: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It provides multiple example phrasings (fact check, verify the claim) and distinguishes this tool from general Q&A siblings by emphasizing factual claim verification with a structured financial path and grounded pipeline. It also lists output verdict types, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a clear when-to-use. It also explains the routing between financial and other claims. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., ask_pipeworx for general queries), so it falls short of a 5.

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