Veroq

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses cost ('3 credits'), caching behavior ('1 hour/15 min'), methodology ('Checks 200+ verified sources first, falls back to live web'), and detailed return structure (verdict types, 4-factor confidence breakdown, evidence_chain schema, receipt hashing). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Uses section headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLES, CONSTRAINTS) to organize dense information efficiently. Every section earns its place: RETURNS compensates for missing output schema, EXAMPLES illustrates parameter semantics. Front-loaded with core purpose. No wasted text despite length.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully documents return values (verdict enum, confidence scoring factors, evidence_chain structure, receipt format) and operational constraints. For a complex verification tool with fallbacks and cost implications, this is comprehensive without being overwhelming.

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, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by repeating the character constraints ('10-1000 characters') and providing qualitative guidance ('Be specific — include names, numbers, dates') in the CONSTRAINTS section, plus concrete EXAMPLES showing optimal claim formulation. Could have elaborated on 'context' parameter values, but otherwise excellent.

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 opens with specific verbs ('Fact-check') and resources ('claim with full evidence chain, confidence breakdown'), clearly positioning this as the verification-specific tool among the 40+ sibling data tools. The 'TRUST tool' branding further distinguishes it from general search or data retrieval tools.

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 specifying triggers ('After any agent... makes a factual claim'), domains ('earnings, revenue, market movements'), and proactive use cases ('verify assumptions before making recommendations'). It implicitly contrasts with veroq_search or veroq_ask by emphasizing evidence-proving rather than information retrieval.

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