Veroq

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses resource cost ('2 credits'), return value structure ('Outlook, confidence, time horizon...'), and provides a concrete example. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, or rate limits, but covers the essential behavioral traits.

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?

Extremely well-structured with clear section headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Every line delivers unique information. No redundant or filler text. Highly scannable and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Comprehensive given the complexity and lack of output schema. The RETURNS section compensates for missing output schema by detailing the forecast components. Covers cost and example usage. Minor gap: does not specify time horizon constraints or confidence level interpretations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value through the EXAMPLE block, which demonstrates realistic parameter values ('US inflation trajectory', 'deep'), providing concrete semantic context for the 'depth' enum and topic formatting beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 specific verbs ('generate', 'forecast') and clearly identifies the resource (topic) and methodology (intelligence trends, momentum, historical patterns). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like veroq_ask or veroq_brief by emphasizing forward-looking predictive analysis rather than current data retrieval or Q&A.

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?

Provides an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section defining the specific use case (predictive analysis, likely outcomes, risk factors). However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., veroq_research vs. veroq_forecast) or provide negative constraints (when not to use).

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