verify_claim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool verifies claims but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what side effects might occur, what output format to expect (e.g., boolean, evidence summary), or any rate limits or access constraints. The mention of 'cryptographic, timestamped evidence sources' hints at the underlying mechanism but lacks concrete behavioral detail.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise with zero filler, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's core function. The brevity is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a confidence score, or evidence details), nor does it explain how the 'cryptographic, timestamped evidence sources' are accessed or what criteria constitute verification. Agents would lack critical information to interpret results and handle edge cases, especially since no output schema exists.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it mentions the claim as the core subject and implies that entity_id is optional for scoping, but it doesn't elaborate on how entity_id affects the verification process or provide format examples beyond the schema. This is adequate but not enhancing.

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: verifying an assertion or claim against evidence sources. The verb 'verify' is specific, the resource is identified as 'assertion or claim', and it distinguishes itself from siblings like trace_claim or compare_claims by focusing on cryptographic and timestamped evidence. This is not a tautology and provides a clear, unique function.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives like trace_claim, compare_claims, or find_evidence, nor does it specify conditions that would favor one tool over another. The only implicit context is that verification is needed, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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