submit_verification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool records a verification ('Confirmation that the verification was recorded'), implying a write operation, but does not detail behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or whether the action is reversible. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior beyond its basic function.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three concise sentences that each serve a clear purpose: stating the tool's purpose, providing usage guidelines, and describing the return value. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or system impact. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what 'confirmation' entails would be beneficial for full understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting both parameters ('is_safe' and 'solution_id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 tool's purpose: 'Rate whether a solution is safe and legitimate, or malicious/spam.' It specifies the verb ('rate') and resource ('solution'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'submit_feedback' or 'unlock_solution', which might have overlapping contexts. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'When you encounter a solution that needs safety verification — flagging harmful code, spam, or confirming a solution is trustworthy.' It includes examples (harmful code, spam) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as how it differs from 'submit_feedback'.

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