check_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool performs a network fetch, that matching is against visible text rather than raw HTML, and that a loaded page without the quote yields a "refuted" verdict meaning the attribution is fabricated. It omits failure-mode behavior (page fails to load), auth, and rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the mechanism, then the usage trigger, then the failure semantics. No wasted wording.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains the return verdict, including what "refuted" means. It leaves the success verdict and load-failure behavior implicit, which is a small but real gap for an agent interpreting results.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `url` is defined as the fetched target and `quote` as the exact string matched against the page's visible text. It still leaves ambiguity about matching strictness (case, whitespace, normalization) and accepted URL forms.

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?

Specific verb+resource: verifies that an exact quote appears on a fetched web page. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_code, check_repo, and check_math, which all verify different artifact types.

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?

"Use before attributing a statement to a source" gives a clear situation for invocation, and the resource-based framing naturally separates it from the other check_* tools. No explicit alternative is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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