verify_news

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the search process, the corroboration threshold (>=2 independent or single primary/official), the meaning of is_legit, aggregator redirects, and how to use fetchable_urls and reference_candidates. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 long but every sentence carries essential operational guidance. It front-loads the critical 'START HERE' trigger and then systematically covers usage, thresholds, and downstream tool integration. It is structured and efficient, though slightly verbose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return fields (is_legit, fetchable_urls, reference_candidates), the conditions for each, and how to proceed with the results. It also addresses edge cases (old headlines, aggregator redirects) making it complete for correct invocation and post-processing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains days (limits how far back to look) and title implicitly as the headline to verify. However, limit is not explicitly described, though its default and likely purpose (max results) are inferable. It adds value for most parameters but not all.

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 verb (verify) and resource (a headline), and explicitly distinguishes from find_stories which finds stories for topics. It clearly says this tool confirms a story is real before drafting, so an agent knows exactly what it does.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use (user provides a specific headline, even if they only ask for a blog post) and when-not-to (if user gives a topic, call find_stories first). It also explains the days parameter's role and the behavior of old headlines, leaving no ambiguity about invocation.

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