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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds the meaningful behavioral constraint that it performs no new synthesis and returns only a matching pattern plus citations. It also discloses provenance (internal product policy), which helps the agent calibrate how much weight to give the result. No contradiction with the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints.

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, and every clause earns its place: action, sources, output, and key constraints. The essential limitations are front-loaded before any elaboration.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers input, output shape, source scope, and a major limitation (internal policy, not evidence). It leaves details like exact `kind` values, citation formatting, and non-match behavior unspecified, but the absence of an output schema makes those gaps acceptable.

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 schema already fully documents the single `text` parameter as a claim or thread excerpt, so the description adds little beyond restating 'the claim.' With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no format, length, or example guidance is added.

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 names a specific action ('Match the claim'), the target categories ('discourse game, numbered claim, or monopoly fallacy'), and the exact source documents to consult. It also specifies the output ('kind + heading pattern + cites') and draws a boundary against evidence tools by noting the files are internal product policy, not contemporaneous evidence.

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?

It provides clear usage context by restricting the source documents to three internal files and explicitly says these are not contemporaneous evidence, which tells an agent not to use this tool for evidence-gathering. It also says 'No new synthesis,' framing it as classification rather than generation. It does not name sibling tools like verify_claim or find_discourse as alternatives, so it stops short of full when-to-use routing.

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