generate_factcheck_report

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

There are no annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action of generating a report. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any required permissions or sources, or what the report contains, leaving the agent without crucial behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and object. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no wasted verbiage.

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 the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description does not fully specify what the 'structured verification report' includes, nor does it explain usage context relative to sibling tools. The description is too minimal to be considered complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without further clarification.

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 100% for the single parameter 'topic', which already has a description ('Tema o claim principal'). The description adds minimal additional meaning, merely aligning with the schema field. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the tool generates a structured verification report for a topic or claim about Venezuela, using a specific verb ('genera') and resource ('reporte estructurado de verificación'). This distinguishes it from siblings like verify_claim, which likely verifies a claim directly, and search_official_sources, which searches 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_claim or search_official_sources. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites for use, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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