verify

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are signals rather than proof, and the tool batches multiple claims into one request. This helps set expectations without contradicting 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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The most important routing information is front-loaded, and the exclusion conditions are compactly listed.

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 description is sufficient for tool selection and gives a clear usage boundary, and the output schema exists to document return values. However, with five parameters, nested objects, and no schema-level descriptions, the lack of parameter-level guidance leaves a meaningful completeness gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the five parameters. It adds high-level meaning by implying that 'claims' are named propositions and 'state' is the supplied evidence, but it does not explain true_criteria, false_criteria, or model. Most parameter semantics remain undocumented.

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's function: checking multiple named claims against supplied evidence in a single request. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming check, review, and gate and the conditions that select them, so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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 provides explicit USE WHEN and DO NOT USE WHEN guidance, naming alternatives (check, review, gate) and the exact scenarios for which they are appropriate. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select verify over its siblings.

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