audit_corpus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool 'returns' data, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or whether it is safe. The term 'verified' hints at some internal process but offers no details. For a tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the primary action and the output in a compact form. Every word contributes to meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured for a simple tool.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the return values represent. It says 'corpus counts and provenance metadata' but does not elaborate on what counts are included (e.g., total shayari count, language breakdowns) or what 'provenance' means. While the tool is simple, an agent might need more detail to interpret the output correctly. Given the lack of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves room for 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per the rules. The schema is empty, and the description does not need to explain parameters since none exist. The description adds no parameter-related information, but that is acceptable given the absence of parameters.

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 states a clear action ('return') and a specific resource ('verified corpus counts and provenance metadata'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (search_shayari, search_research_shayari, get_shayari) which focus on retrieving shayari content, whereas this tool provides audit statistics. The verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to understand its unique purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for overall corpus statistics, nor does it exclude usage for searching or retrieving individual shayari. An agent has no context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred over the siblings.

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