grade_answer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Deterministic and lexical, not a model judgement', which is a key behavioral trait. It also explains what it reports (unsupported sentences). However, it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or output format details.

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 consists of two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and result; the second sentence provides usage guidance and a behavioral note. 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?

Given the 3-parameter set with full schema coverage and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral trait (deterministic). However, it lacks information about the return value format (e.g., does it return a list of unsupported sentences? a score?), which would help an agent 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?

The schema coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds marginal value beyond the schema: it characterizes the unsupported sentences as 'fabricated figures and claims the sources never make', but this is more about purpose than parameter semantics. The threshold parameter's description in the schema is already clear; the tool description doesn't add new meaning.

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 the tool's function: 'Check a draft answer against its sources and report which sentences the sources do NOT support'. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'report') and a specific resource ('draft answer', 'sources'). The sibling tools (calc, search, model_drift, compare_runs) are unrelated, so there's no ambiguity.

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 says when to use the tool: 'Call this on your own answer before giving it to the user when the answer is supposed to be grounded in provided material.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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