corroborate_claim

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a verdict and lists some possible values, but it does not specify the output structure (string, object, confidence scores) or mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 a single sentence with parenthetical examples—concise with no wasted words. However, it lacks any structural organization like bullet points for use cases or parameter explanations, which could improve clarity without much length.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not fully capture the complexity: it lacks details on output format, error conditions, and parameter constraints (e.g., minimum number of excerpts, format of claim). The example verdicts are incomplete (ending with '...').

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 only 33% (only 'backend' has a description). The description does not add meaning for 'claim' or 'excerpts' beyond their names; it fails to explain what constitutes a valid claim or how to structure excerpts. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 uses specific verbs ('triangulate') and resources ('claim across multiple source excerpts') and clearly states the return value (a corroboration verdict with examples). It distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which perform the same function.

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 for corroborating claims but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like evidence_entailment or classify_source. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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