novada_verify

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld. Description adds valuable detail: runs supporting/skeptical/fact-check searches, returns verdict types and confidence 0-100. Warns verdict is not definitive, which is crucial context beyond annotations.

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?

Three short paragraphs efficiently covering purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral note. No wasted words; front-loaded with key info.

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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return types (verdict + confidence). Covers search strategy and limitations. Complete for a simple 2-param tool.

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 100% so baseline is 3. Description reinforces that 'claim' is a factual claim (min 10 chars) and 'context' optional for narrowing, but doesn't add substantial new meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it verifies factual claims against web sources using 3 parallel searches. It distinguishes from siblings novada_research (open-ended) and novada_extract (specific URLs), making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly lists 'Best for' and 'Not for' with specific alternative tools. Provides note about verdict being signal-based, guiding appropriate use.

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