Multi-step Hypothesis Test

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

Description adds details beyond annotations: tests run in order with no branching/early exit, verdict is mechanical (all pass=supported, zero pass=refuted, else partially supported). Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent; description confirms coordination role.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and wastes no words. Each sentence adds value: purpose, use case, coordination nature, verdict logic, and sibling tool recommendations.

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 tool complexity and presence of output schema, description fully covers purpose, usage, behavior, and alternatives. It ensures an agent can correctly select and invoke the tool without ambiguity.

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% with detailed descriptions per parameter. Description adds context by listing example check types (endpoint, npm counts, substring) and stating tests must be predefined. While schema already covers parameters well, description provides extra guidance.

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 it runs a verification plan of concrete checks to summarize hypothesis support. It distinguishes from siblings like verify_claim, estimate_market, and compare_competitors by specifying when each is appropriate.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when conclusion depends on multiple simple checks. Provides clear alternatives: verify_claim for evidence URLs, estimate_market for category sizing, compare_competitors for known package names.

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