fact_checker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the process (searching, analyzing credibility, extracting evidence) but does not disclose specific behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. The description is adequate but lacks detail on what the tool returns.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and features without waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return structure or provide guidance on when to use versus sibling tools. It covers the process but lacks details on results and limitations.

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 100% with each parameter described. The tool description adds context by framing the overall task (e.g., 'credibility analysis' relates to confidenceThreshold, 'evidence extraction' relates to includeEvidence), providing meaning beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify claims by searching multiple authoritative sources with credibility analysis and evidence extraction'. It uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('claims'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'google_search' or 'multi_site_search' by focusing on verification rather than general search.

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 description implies the use case for fact-checking claims but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'google_search' or 'multi_site_search'. The context is clear, but no exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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