submit_verification

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is a persistence operation and mentions what gets persisted (verdict, confidence, evidence, tests, citations). However, it does not explain what happens on duplicate submissions, whether it overwrites, or what the response/error behavior is. The 'one-report-per.hypothesis' phrase gives a hint but not full transparency.

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 well-organized with a clear purpose line, trigger bullets, and a parameter list. It avoids filler and front-loads the most important information. Every section earns its place, especially given the zero schema description coverage.

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 tool sits in a complex Co-Scientist workflow with many related siblings, and it haas no annotations or output schema. The description explains when to call it and what the main parameters are, but it does not clarify the expected internal shape of verification_report, the relationship to start_hypothesis_verification, or behavior on duplicate submission. These gaps make it only minimally complete.

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. It provides meaningful one-line semantics for all four parameters: run_id, hypothesis_id, verification_report, and created_by. It also hints at the report contents in the trigger bullets. It doesn't specify exact fields within the verification_report object, but it gives enough context for an agent to understand the param roles.

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 a specific action ('Submit a verification report') and a specific resource ('one Co-Scientist hypothesis'). It also names the one-report-per-hypothesis constraint, which helps distinguish it from related tools like start_hypothesis_verification or submit_hypothesis.

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 'AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS' section gives concrete conditions for when to call this tool: after a verification agent adjudicates a hypothesis, when persisting verdict/evidence/citations, and when completing the one-report-per-hypothesis handoff. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives, but the context is clear.

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