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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns only cited records, reports 'no verified record' when nothing matches, and never synthesizes an answer. This absence semantics is important and goes beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then adds the key absence semantics. Every sentence contributes value and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call-time behavior: what the query is, what records are returned, and how absence is reported. It does not spell out the exact output structure of cited records, but that is not critical for selecting or invoking this tool 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?

The input schema only names 'query' with no description, so the tool description carries the semantic weight. It defines the parameter as a 'claim or product query' and explains how it is used. This is meaningful but could be slightly stronger with examples or expected query 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Check a claim or product query against the store' and clarifies what counts as a match ('cited records (recalls and requirements)'). This makes the tool distinct from sibling tools like search_recalls or get_requirement by emphasizing verification rather than simple retrieval.

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 context clearly implies when to use this tool: when a claim needs to be checked against the store and when absence of a record should be interpreted as 'not in the store', not as a negative claim. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names and the verification framing provide enough guidance.

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