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, sufficiency, guarantee, per-part atoms, and receipt. Explains weakest-link splitting, limitations on recent/private claims, and guarantee only on calibrated deployments.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections (PURPOSE, GUIDELINES, PARAMETERS, LIMITATIONS, EXAMPLE). Every sentence adds value, 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?

Despite no output schema, description details all return fields and how to use results (e.g., gate on sufficiency and verdict). Limitations and example make it complete for agent use.

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 only 50% (maxSources missing description). Description adds critical detail: claim must be 'ONE complete declarative sentence' and maxSources range 1-10 with default 5, exceeding schema info.

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 starts with 'PURPOSE: Fact-check one claim against live sources' and lists specific outputs. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_citations and extract_claims by focusing on verification with a gate-ready result.

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?

Explicit guidelines: 'Call BEFORE asserting or acting on a fact you are unsure of' and 'Prefer over an LLM's own judgment'. Also provides conditions for abstaining and gating decisions.

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