check_authorization

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

Discloses return type (registry record or 'unknown') and important caveats: absence is not judgment, perceptual matches need human confirmation. No annotations exist, so description carries burden; covers key behavioral aspects but omits auth or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: first defines purpose, second covers query options and return value with caveats. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers main purpose and return type, but missing explanation of maxDistance parameter and details about the registry record structure. With no output schema, more detail on return value would improve completeness.

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?

Explains sha256 and pdq parameters meaningfully (exact bytes vs. perceptual fingerprint from capture_evidence), but fails to describe maxDistance parameter at all. With 0% schema coverage, description fills some gaps but leaves one parameter unexplained.

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?

Explicitly states the tool checks content against a registered work in the Official AI registry, using clear verb 'Check' and specific resource. Differentiates from siblings like capture_evidence and draft_notice.

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?

Provides guidance on query methods (sha256 or pdq) and mentions pdq comes from capture_evidence, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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