check_claims

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses a side effect (a receipt written on the key owner's hash chain), an auth requirement (STOCKONOMY_API_KEY), and the semantic boundary of a verdict ('says nothing about whether the figure or the company is sound'). It does not explain receipt retrieval or failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then prerequisites, then verdict semantics. Dense and largely waste-free, though the trailing verdict enumeration is a long list that could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description rightly enumerates the possible verdicts, which IS the return-value contract. Combined with the auth note and receipt side effect, it is nearly complete for a rigid, bounded call; only receipt contents and refusal mechanics remain unexplained.

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 only 33% and the description barely compensates: it repeats the 20-claim and one-ticker limits already in the schema, and never explains the three distinct claim shapes (figure / growth-margin / no_* assertions) or the 'reference' receipt tag. An agent must read the schema alone to build a valid claim.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: check up to 20 claims about one ticker against SEC filings, producing a verdict. The 'writes a receipt on the key owner's hash chain' clause differentiates it from the other check/pit/recast siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Implies usage via the 'up to 20 claims', one-ticker scope, and the API key prerequisite, but never states when to prefer this over check_figure_free or the point_in_time family. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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