Multi-step Hypothesis Test

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds that tests run in order with no branching/early exit, and the verdict is mechanical (all passing -> SUPPORTED, etc.). Detailed behavior of each test type is described (e.g., endpoint_exists performs unauthenticated GET, response_contains is case-sensitive with no DOM parsing). No contradiction with 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?

Description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, behavioral details, and alternatives. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 complexity (multiple test types, ordered list, verdict logic) and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient detail for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers when to use, test behaviors, and expected outcomes.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The tool description adds context: hypothesis is a claim, tests must be explicitly defined in advance, and it explains each test type's behavior (e.g., endpoint_exists: unauthenticated GET, pass on 2xx). This enhances the schema but the schema was already detailed.

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?

Description clearly states it runs a multi-step verification plan and summarizes whether a hypothesis is supported. It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives (verify_claim, estimate_market, compare_competitors) and specifying usage scenarios.

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 one conclusion depends on multiple simple checks such as endpoint reachability, npm search counts...' and provides alternatives for other cases. Also clarifies it's not an open-ended research agent.

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