verify_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what each assertion type does and the output shape (boolean verdict plus raw evidence), but omits side effects, permissions, error cases, or rate limits. It gives the core behavior but not the full picture.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and the three modes are listed compactly. No fluff or redundant detail; every sentence 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?

For a generic dispatcher with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format and the three modes, but lacks guidance on selecting among sibling tools, error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., GitHub auth). It is adequate but not thorough.

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 83% and the description adds meaning by linking each assertion type to the relevant parameters (e.g., 'contains' implies url and assertion; 'github_merged' implies repo, number, kind). This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, helping the agent understand the conditional dependencies.

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 is a generic claim verifier that produces a boolean verdict and raw evidence, and enumerates three distinct assertion types. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools verify_url and verify_github, so an agent might not know when the generic tool is preferred.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this generic tool versus the more specific siblings verify_url and verify_github. It implies usage by listing assertion types but does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving tool selection to inference.

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