Veroq

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

Discloses 'COST: 3 credits' and return value structure ('titles, URLs, snippets, relevance scores') which compensates for the lack of annotations. However, it omits details about error handling, rate limits, or behavior when no results are found, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Employs structured headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE) creating highly scannable sections with zero redundancy. Every line serves a distinct purpose, efficiently organizing operational guidance without wasted 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?

Thoroughly compensates for the missing output schema by detailing return values, and effectively positions the tool against siblings like veroq_brief. The cost disclosure and example provide complete operational context, though minor gaps regarding error states or pagination remain for this moderately complex tool.

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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the description adds significant value through the EXAMPLE section showing practical JSON syntax and valid values like 'week' for freshness and true for verify. This concrete illustration reinforces parameter semantics beyond the schema definitions.

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 'Search the live web with optional VEROQ trust scoring on results' provides a specific verb (Search), resource (live web), and distinguishing feature (trust scoring). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like veroq_search and veroq_brief by emphasizing external web data versus internal intelligence sources.

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?

Explicitly states 'WHEN TO USE: When intelligence briefs don't cover a topic and you need live web results,' providing clear guidance on choosing this tool over alternatives. Additionally advises 'Enable verify=true for trust scoring,' giving specific parameter guidance for optimal usage.

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