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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lowered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the auth requirement ('Requires a token') and by ruling out side effects (no research, reservation or publication) — useful clarifications for a tool whose name ('prepare') might suggest mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is produced and followed by the auth requirement and the negative scope. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the artifact's contents, the auth prerequisite, and the absence of side effects — enough for an agent to call it correctly. Only task_id's semantics remain unaddressed.

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 50%: api_key is well documented in the schema, but task_id carries only a pattern with no prose. The description adds nothing about task_id's origin or format, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap; baseline 3 applies.

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 artifact: 'Prepare a verification brief with existing records, source starting points and evidence criteria.' The enumerated contents make the output concrete and distinguish it from siblings like list_verification_tasks or call_research_tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 negative scope ('No external research, task reservation or publication is performed') implicitly bounds when to use it and routes agents elsewhere for those jobs, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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