Verify scraped claim (full)

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

Annotations already mark this readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it 'independently re-fetches the page and never trusts the fetch you were given,' explains the structural guarantee that a judge 'can only veto a pass, never create one,' and discloses that 'anything unconfirmed returns unverifiable, never pass.' It also covers signing, verdict_id, engine digest, server-rendered scope, and cost. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Although long, every sentence carries distinct information: purpose, non-retrieval nature, when to use, independent refetch guarantee, judge veto, unverifiable fallback, signature details, scope, and pricing. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the structure moves logically from what it does to how to use it to its guarantees and limitations.

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?

For a tool with a nested claim object and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains behavior, guarantees, failure modes, signature verification via get_verifier_info, scope limitations, and even pricing/payment. The output schema handles return-value structure, so the description does not need to repeat that, and nothing essential for calling the tool correctly appears to be missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions for url, claim, and asked, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some framing—the claim is a value you already possess and the tool does not fetch data for you—but it does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Checks whether a value you did not fetch yourself is actually on the source page right now' and clarifies it 'returns a signed pass/fail/unverifiable verdict.' It clearly separates itself from retrieval tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool verify_presence, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use it when you hold a value that came from somewhere else...' and states what it is not: 'Not a retrieval tool.' It also gives scope limitations ('JS-only content returns unverifiable'). However, it never mentions when to prefer verify_presence instead, so exclusion guidance is incomplete.

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