Verify claim

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

The description discloses one important behavioral trait: it does not upgrade derived evidence. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what side effects may occur, or what 'resolve' entails beyond reporting status.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the behavioral caveat is incorporated without bloating the description.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but incomplete: it does not define what 'evidence status' is, what the response contains, or whether the claim must already exist. With no annotations or output schema, more context about expected results and failure modes would be helpful.

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?

The one required parameter, claim_id, is not described in the schema. The description partially compensates by tying it to 'a persisted claim,' but it does not explain how to obtain a claim_id or what kinds of claims are valid inputs.

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 identifies a specific action (resolve/report) on a specific resource (persisted claim) and states the outcome (current evidence status). The phrase 'without upgrading derived evidence' adds useful scope, though 'Resolve' is slightly ambiguous and it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling claim-related tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as extract_paper_claims or refresh_paper. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or which sibling tools should be chosen instead under different conditions.

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