verify_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 clearly states that the tool 'Returns whether the claim is verified and any discrepancy found' and uses 'live GSC data,' giving insight into the expected behavior and output without contradicting any 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes essential information. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 the moderate complexity (six parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains inputs and expected output. It clearly communicates the tool's role as a verification step but could go deeper on edge cases (e.g., handling of invalid data), though this is not necessary for standard use.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters. The description adds little beyond restating the required and optional parameters ('Pass the claim text, the metric to check, the expected value, and optionally a URL or query'). This meets the baseline but does not enrich parameter understanding further.

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: 'Verify a specific numeric claim against live GSC data.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing verification/self-checking rather than discovery or reporting.

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 clear context for use: 'Use this to self-check your analysis before presenting findings.' It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would merit a 5.

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