Veroq

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses 'COST: 2 credits' and details the return structure ('Version range, confidence change, field-level changes...') despite no output schema existing. Does not explicitly declare read-only/safety status, though implied by 'Get'.

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?

Excellent structure with clear headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Information is front-loaded with the core purpose statement. Every line provides distinct value; no redundant or filler text.

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 simple 2-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description is complete. It compensates for missing structured output by detailing return values, documents operational cost, and provides concrete usage example. No significant gaps remain.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description provides an example call, but this largely duplicates the schema's own examples ('PR-2026-0305-001', '2026-03-18T00:00:00Z') without adding new semantic context about parameter usage.

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 opening sentence provides a specific verb ('Get a diff'), resource ('living brief'), and scope ('since a given time', 'additions, removals, and modifications between versions'). It distinguishes from siblings like veroq_compare (likely entity-to-entity comparison) by emphasizing temporal version comparison.

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?

Contains an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section stating 'To see exactly what changed in a brief since a specific timestamp' and prerequisites ('Requires a brief ID'). Lacks explicit mention of alternatives (e.g., 'use veroq_brief for current state rather than diff'), preventing a 5.

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