verify_identifier

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the tool checks existence in an authoritative source and lists the possible return values (exists, not-found, deprecated, cannot-verify), leaving no hidden assumptions.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition. Highly efficient.

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 verification tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return values and usage context. It is missing potential notes on rate limits or side effects, but those are not critical for this tool. Overall sufficient and clear.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context (e.g., 'authoritative source') but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('identifier') with a clear purpose ('exists in authoritative source'). It distinguishes the tool from general lookups by emphasizing hallucination/slop-squat detection, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before recommending or installing a package, or before editing a file path') and why ('catch hallucinated or slop-squatted identifiers'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would earn a 5.

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