verify_change

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers non-mutating behavior, and the description adds valuable interpretation guidance: results are associative, never causal. It also reveals the pre/post comparison methodology, which is beyond what the annotation or schema conveys.

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, well-structured sentence with a clear statistical caveat appended. Every part earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With a full output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential purpose and a key interpretive limitation. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over correlated sibling tools, but the provided information is sufficient for most selection and invocation scenarios.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both operator_id and intervention_id. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('a measured change after intervention') and clarifies the pre/post comparison scope. This clearly separates it from siblings like assign_intervention or get_intervention_status, which focus on assignment or status rather than change verification.

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 when to use it — after an intervention with pre/post measurements — but it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools. An agent can infer context, but there is no explicit routing guidance relative to siblings.

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