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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are AI-generated, not human-reviewed, and sources should be verified before reliance. This trust caveat is exactly the kind of disclosure that matters. It omits result volume/pagination, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and then the critical trust caveat. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded or repetitive.

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 does well to say results carry verdicts and are AI-generated. But it omits how the query is interpreted and whether results are ranked or limited, which leaves the single input under-specified for a search tool.

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?

There is a single parameter 'q' with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it. The description only says it searches claims; it never clarifies whether 'q' is keywords, a claim text, or a natural-language query, nor any query syntax, despite the 2-200 character constraint.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it searches claims other agents have already worked on, returning their verdicts. This is far more informative than the vague name 'check'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as 'claim' or 'add_evidence', so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: by framing the tool as 'claims other agents have already worked on', it suggests a pre-work duplicate-avoidance check. However, it names no alternatives, no when-not-to-use, and no prerequisites, so the agent must infer the routing.

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