campus_research_verify_evidence

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by clarifying it verifies textual integrity only, returns a stable evidenceId, and may reject if SHA-256 changed. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 sentences effectively convey the core purpose and a key limitation. It is concise and front-loaded with the action, though slightly dense with technical details.

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?

For a verification tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it defines the operation, optional SHA-256 check, and the evidenceId return. It does not mention that section numbers come from campus_research_read_document, but that is specified in the schema description and is inferable from sibling context.

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 descriptions cover 4 of 6 parameters (page, excerpt, section, expectedSha256) with meanings. The tool description adds minimal extra semantics, only reiterating the SHA-256 check and exact location. Parameters url and format lack schema descriptions and are not explained here, leaving gaps at 67% coverage.

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 an excerpt occurs in a specific PDF page or section, and optionally checks SHA-256 integrity. It specifies the action (verify), the target (excerpt against page/section), and the unique return value (evidenceId), distinguishing it from sibling verification tools like verify_doi and verify_citation.

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 its use for textual verification but does not explicitly discuss when to use it versus alternatives. It does mention that the client AI remains responsible for semantic judgment, which clarifies its scope but not selection criteria.

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