Veroq

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully documents the credit cost ('2 credits') and return structure ('Array of timeline entries with...'). Implies read-only safety via 'Get', though explicit declaration would strengthen further.

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 structured formatting with clear section headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Every sentence delivers distinct value—no redundancy with schema or fluff. Front-loaded purpose followed by operational metadata.

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?

Absence of output schema is compensated by detailed return description listing all fields (version, timestamp, summary, etc.). Single-parameter simplicity makes this adequate, though explicit mention of pagination or maximum timeline depth would achieve perfect completeness.

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 coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete EXAMPLE ('PR-2026-0305-001') showing expected format, and semantic context that the ID comes 'from search/feed', helping the agent understand data lineage.

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?

Opens with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'story evolution timeline', immediately clarifying scope. The em-dash detail ('versioned updates, confidence changes, and new sources over time') precisely distinguishes this from sibling tools like veroq_brief (current state) or veroq_feed (stream).

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?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section states the temporal analysis scenario ('how a story developed over time'). Critically, it specifies the prerequisite 'Requires a brief ID from search/feed', directing the agent to use veroq_search or veroq_feed first, preventing invocation errors.

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