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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: exact substring matching first, then fuzzy matching at a >=90% threshold, plus the returned corpus_version. It omits potential caveats such as rate limits, corpus scope, or what a no-match result implies, 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?

The description is dense and front-loaded: purpose, when to use, when not to use, matching strategy, and return shape follow in logical order. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 explicitly lists the return object fields, including verified, match_type, best_score, match details, and corpus_version. Combined with clear usage boundaries and matching behavior, it gives an agent everything needed to invoke and interpret the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so lang, slug, limit, and quote are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no further parameter-level semantics such as how lang interacts with matching or what slug values look like. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 a quotation against the Cyber Library corpus and return the passage, book, chapter, chunk_id, and citation. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming cyberlibrary_search_books and cyberlibrary_get_chapter as outside its scope. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (before citing, to catch hallucination, to ground a claim) and when not to use it (finding a book by title, reading a chapter), naming the alternatives. The conditions for choosing this tool are directly actionable.

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