verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: numbers must appear in cited evidence with a matching unit and role, anomaly findings must cite the reporting tool result, and passed checks are marked 'observation'. It omits what happens on failure and whether the call mutates state.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences lead with the core action and then add the rules and syntax examples. Dense but every clause carries real constraint information; the examples earn their space.

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 validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should sketch the return shape. It hints that results are labeled 'observation' but never says what a verification response looks like (pass/fail list, errors, per-finding status), leaving a real gap.

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 0% and the schema only declares an untyped object array, so the description has to compensate. It does so well for 'findings' by enumerating title, statement, category, severity, channel, t_start, t_end, evidence[] and explaining the bracket-tag syntax, but never explains 'run_id'.

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: it checks findings (with an explicit field list) against the ledger, which no sibling tool does. The purpose is unambiguous, though it never names a sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of a 5.

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 defines pass/fail criteria and category rules, which implies usage (validate findings before trusting them), but never states when to call it relative to siblings like run_analysis or write_html_report, nor any prerequisites such as needing a completed run.

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