verified_claims

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

Without annotations, the description provides useful behavioral context: it is a read-only list operation that returns DOIs with verdicts and replication counts, and is author-agnostic and network-wide. It does not mention any destructive or complex behaviors, which is acceptable for a simple list tool.

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 a single sentence with an additional sentence detailing output fields, front-loading the key action and scope without any unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and simple context, the description fully explains the tool's purpose and output format, leaving no gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter context. The baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 verb 'List every claim' and specifies the resource: claims from the nanopub network with Science Live replication verdicts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like radar and replication_status.

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 implies usage for obtaining the verified-knowledge corpus but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to choose replication_status instead.

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