Verify Claim

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it 'check[s]' without suggesting modification. It adds context about requiring 'tracked evidence', which clarifies the non-destructive nature. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond the annotation.

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 main description is a single, front-loaded sentence that captures the core purpose. The parameter description is detailed but necessary for the nested object. No wasted words, and the structure is clear.

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 two parameters (one optional nested), the description covers purpose and parameter usage well. It does not explain the return value or how 'tracked evidence' is defined, but given the lack of output schema and moderate complexity, it is nearly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value for the 'goalContract' parameter by explaining when to use it (worker/orchestrator/reviewer loop with explicit done criteria), which is not present in the schema. This extra guidance justifies a higher score.

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 'check' and resource 'claim' with a specific condition ('enough tracked evidence'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'require_evidence_for_claim' which is about setting evidence requirements, whereas this tool verifies sufficiency.

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 implies usage 'before the agent asserts it' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'register_claim_gate' or 'satisfy_gate'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving potential ambiguity.

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