verify_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the method (Tavily search + notebook patterns) but does not state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean verdict, evidence summary), whether it makes external API calls, or any side effects/limitations. Some behavioral insight is provided, but not enough for full transparency.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and method. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain return values and usage context. It fails to mention what the tool outputs or how to interpret results, which is critical for a verification tool. This leaves a significant gap in completeness.

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 100%, so the description need not add much. The description's mention of 'afirmación' aligns with the claim parameter but adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's example and context explanation.

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 a specific action (verify) on a specific resource (a claim about Venezuela) using a defined method (Tavily search + known notebook patterns). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch patterns, search official sources, or generate reports.

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?

The description implies the tool is for verifying claims about Venezuela, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use search_official_sources for official source verification' or 'use get_fakenews_patterns to fetch patterns first.'

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