verify_claim

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: returns verdict types (PASS/FAIL/PARTIAL/UNKNOWN), includes evidence snippet and source, and returns null when untested with an explanation of what that means. This builds trust and sets expectations clearly.

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, no fluff, purpose first, then behavior and usage cue. Every word earns its place.

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 main behavior, return types, and edge case (untested claim). Without an output schema, it sufficiently explains what the agent can expect. Could mention idempotency or performance, but not essential for this simple tool.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by specifying that claims should be a 'specific marketing or capability claim' and that verification uses 'Hlido's independent testing', which enriches the context beyond the schema alone.

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: to fact-check a specific marketing or capability claim against Hlido's independent testing. It uses a strong verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like 'trust_check' or 'get_scorecard' by focusing on one claim at a time.

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 tells when to use the tool ('validate a vendor's specific promise before you rely on it') and hints at scope (one specific claim). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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