get_verdict

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the multi-run return behavior (all verdicts in ledger order), the ratchet-event semantics when verdicts change, and the explicit non-inference constraint. It does not state what happens when both optional params are omitted or describe the return format, which keeps it from 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?

Four sentences with no wasted words; the primary verb+resource and scope are front-loaded, and the ratchet/ledger behavioral notes earn their place. Slightly dense but not padded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both modes, multi-run behavior, and a key constraint. The clear gap is the neither-param case: both fields are optional (required: 0), yet the description never clarifies what calling with no arguments returns, which an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by mapping 'check' to the exact-name retrieval mode and 'claim' to the phrase-search mode (e.g. 'exact check name' appears in the schema too, so little is added beyond the schema's own wording).

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve the recorded verdict for a named check, or find claims containing a phrase') and clearly delineates two operating modes. It orients the agent within a ledger-based verification context via ratchet/ledger terminology, distinguishing it from the sibling tools by describing exactly what this tool does and doesn't do.

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 two modes (by exact check name vs. by phrase search) give some implied usage context, and the closing constraint 'Never infers a verdict for a claim that is not in the ledger' functions as a when-not. However, no sibling tool is named and there is no explicit routing guidance about when to prefer query_claim, what_would_refute, or verifier_drift_net over this tool.

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