verify_grounding

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

The description states it returns a grounding report flagging untraceable numbers and declares the tool is read-only. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well, though it could mention error handling or performance implications.

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 concise, front-loading the main purpose and providing necessary context in a single paragraph. It is efficient but could be slightly better structured with separate parameter explanations.

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?

The description covers the core functionality well, but lacks details on optional parameters and output format. Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity, more information would be beneficial.

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?

The description explains that the 'payload' should be a result from get_finance_status or get_daily_digest, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the optional parameters 'as_of_date' and 'db_path' are not mentioned at all, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 verifies that headline dollar figures in a finance payload trace to their sources. It specifically references sibling tools like get_finance_status and get_daily_digest, making it distinct from the many other tools in the list.

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 advises using this tool to verify a finance answer before relying on it, and explicitly notes it is read-only. It provides a clear use case but does not discuss when not to use it or offer alternatives.

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