verify_candidate

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Attributes like 'deterministic' and 'gate' give some behavioral hints, but it does not describe what happens on failure (e.g., returns boolean vs throws), side effects beyond optional logging, or any authorization or prerequisite requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first delivers the core purpose; the second adds optional behavior. No fluff.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter semantics, failure modes, return format, and data flow context. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 0% and no parameter details are provided in the description. The 8 optional parameters (workdir, rationale, feature_id, mass_tol_ppm, observed_mass, proposed_mass, observed_formula, proposed_formula) have no explanatory text, leaving agents without guidance on how to use them.

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?

Description clearly states it is a deterministic formula/mass consistency gate required before accepting fuzzy/synonym/mass-only candidates. The verb 'verify' and resource 'candidate' combined with the gate context distinguish it from sibling tools like exact_match, search_synonym, mass_match_candidates.

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 it is required before accepting any fuzzy/synonym/mass-only candidate, providing clear use context. Mentions optional logging to ledger. Does not explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling list and gate role imply proper usage.

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