verify_finding

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses the exact return shape, defines each status value, warns that 'verified' does not prove the claim is true, states items without a location or in single-file artifacts are 'unverified', notes the finding's status is never modified, and documents the error case (nonexistent finding).

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence carries real information. The inline enumeration of the return object is dense but does not pad, though it makes the paragraph heavy to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully specifies the response fields and status semantics, plus edge cases and the error condition. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents findingId and its source (list_findings or create_finding). The description adds no further syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check a finding's evidence against the files it cites') and immediately scopes what counts as checkable (items with a parseable location). It is clearly distinct from the sibling mutation tools create_finding and update_finding.

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?

Explicitly routes status changes to 'update_finding for that', and clarifies the tool is read-only validation rather than modification. It does not state the positive trigger (e.g. call after create_finding to sanity-check citations), so usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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