Verify numeric claim (airtight)

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the responsibility. It explains the method (independent SymPy re-evaluation at higher precision) and the success criterion (>=20 agreeing digits). It does not disclose failure modes or limitations, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus parameter explanations. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and the low parameter count, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter format, enabling an agent to correctly invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that 'value' is a decimal string and giving examples for 'closed_form' (e.g., 'pi**2/6', 'zeta(3)'), clarifying expected formats.

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: to check that a closed-form expression equals a numeric value using independent SymPy re-evaluation at higher precision. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_formal (formal verification) and identify_constant (identification) by focusing on numeric verification.

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 explicitly says 'Use BEFORE asserting any numeric identity,' providing clear guidance on when to use. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined.

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