verify_value_free

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral clarity. It discloses the fail-closed behavior, the variant-matching behavior, and the deliberately detail-poor return shape. It does not explicitly state there are no side effects, but the read-only check nature is strongly implied.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the check first, then the return contract, then the intended target scenario. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

For a simple two-parameter boolean verification tool, the description is nearly complete: it names inputs, behavior, return value, and intended boundary context. It leaves minor edge-case behavior unspecified, but this does not materially hamper selection or invocation.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, but the description defines the core semantics: `text` is the artifact being verified and `terms` are the prohibited strings matched directly or through normalized variants. It adds meaningful algorithmic context beyond the bare schema, though it omits edge cases like empty terms behavior.

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 a fail-closed verification check that `text` contains none of `terms` or their variants, giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a boolean verification gate rather than a scanning or redaction operation.

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 identifies the intended use case: verifying an artifact before it leaves the perimeter. It implies this is a pre-release/compliance gate rather than a diagnostic tool, and the zero-detail return further signals it is not for troubleshooting that needs matched context.

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