verify_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one important limitation: it is a literal-string check, not scientific verification. It still omits what a pass/fail result means, whether it is read-only, and failure behavior, so it is only partially 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?

Two short sentences, both earning their place, with the core function front-loaded and the caveat immediately after. No padding or redundancy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three entirely undocumented parameters, the description does not supply enough for an agent to call the tool correctly or interpret its result. The limitation caveat helps but leaves substantial gaps.

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 0% across three required parameters, and the description says nothing about quote, source_text, or source_id. It therefore fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving an agent to infer the relationship between quote and source_text.

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 states a specific action and object ('Check literal quote presence'), which is clearer than the tool name 'verify_claim' suggests. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling 'verify_source_quote', so an agent cannot tell which to select without opening both schemas.

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 second sentence functions as a when-not guideline ('This cannot scientifically verify a claim'), steering the agent away from treating it as scientific validation. But there is no positive when-to-use statement and no explicit routing to an alternative such as verify_source_quote or assess_methodology.

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