cv_verify_claims

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

The description discloses that the tool returns only actionable claims (needs_evidence=True), suggests artefact types, and includes a behavioral note: 'The host LLM asks the candidate to supply the actual link — never fabricated.' This adds clarity beyond what annotations would provide (none present).

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 two sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: first states scope and action, second clarifies output and constraint. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 has one required parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers purpose, return behavior, and a behavioral constraint. The only gap is the lack of parameter description for cv_path.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the 'cv_path' parameter. The description provides no additional meaning about what the parameter represents or its expected format.

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 explicitly states the tool flags quantified achievements, leadership claims, named project outcomes, certifications, and awards that need verification. It also specifies that it returns only actionable claims with suggested artefact types. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cv_parse and cv_render.

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 use when needing to verify CV claims, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives. No exclusion criteria or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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