Multi-step Hypothesis Test

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: tests run in order with no branching, no early exit, and the verdict is mechanical. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which are consistent with the description. No contradictions.

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 (5 sentences) and well-structured, with the most important information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, behavioral details, and alternatives.

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 tool's complexity (multi-step with multiple test types) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is complete. It covers the verdict logic, ordering constraints, and coordination nature, leaving no obvious gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds overall context about the coordination role and test execution logic, which helps the agent understand how to construct the 'tests' array, even though it doesn't add new details per parameter beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Run a small verification plan made of concrete live checks and summarize whether a hypothesis is supported.' It uses specific verbs ('run', 'summarize') and distinguishes from siblings like verify_claim, estimate_market, and compare_competitors.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool ('when one conclusion depends on multiple simple checks') and provides alternatives for other scenarios. It also clarifies what the tool is not ('not an open-ended research agent') and lists specific use cases.

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