verify_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the important behavioral trait of performing a 'real HTTP request', which implies network side effects, and mentions the creation of a VerificationRecord. However, it does not discuss potential failures, timeouts, or authorization requirements, so it is informative but not fully 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 a single, concise sentence that packs in the purpose, mechanism, and outcome. Every word contributes value with no irrelevant detail or repetition.

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 a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what happens (HTTP call, VerificationRecord created). It could include return structure, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap. The description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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% since both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add further context about the parameters, but it doesn't need to because the schema already defines 'url' and 'subject_id' clearly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'verify' and the resource 'external source', and specifies that a real HTTP request is made. It also mentions the creation of a VerificationRecord, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_knowledge that might refer to internal validation.

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 phrase 'Verify an external source' provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, relying on the explicit 'external' qualifier to differentiate from other validation tools.

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