query_claim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns specific fields and mentions the ledger size, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any potential side effects, performance characteristics, or access requirements. The description is neutral and adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The additional sentence about ledger size is informative but not strictly necessary for calling the tool; it adds context without bloating the description. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary inputs and outputs, which is helpful. However, it does not explain how to interpret the results (e.g., what the threshold means, how to use the verdict filter in practice) or address edge cases like empty results or pagination beyond the limit parameter. The sibling tools might provide complementary detail, but this description alone is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, query, verdict), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the verdict filter ('optionally filtered by verdict') but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema already states. It does not explain the meaning of the threshold or measured value in the context of parameters, which is fine since those are outputs, not inputs.

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 clearly states the tool searches the CatQualia falsification ledger for claims matching a string, with an optional verdict filter. It also specifies what is returned (claim, threshold, measured value, verdict). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_verdict or what_would_refute, leaving some ambiguity about when this broader search is appropriate versus those more targeted tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the name and description, which is insufficient given the existence of related tools.

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