Corroborate (Multi-Source Truth-Finding)

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'multi-pass' and 'cross-source verification,' but does not describe side effects, return structure, potential rate limits, or what happens with conflicting sources. An agent cannot predict the tool's behavior beyond the vague concept of multi-pass verification.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words, so it is concise and front-loaded with the key concept. However, its extreme brevity borders on under-specification, which is more of a completeness issue. For conciseness alone, it earns a strong score because it avoids waste.

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 four parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, when to adjust `max_iterations` or `confidence_threshold`, or any caveats. An agent would likely need to experiment or rely on other documentation to use this tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 50%, with `query` and `providers` described in the schema, but `max_iterations` and `confidence_threshold` have no schema descriptions. The description adds no parameter meaning at all; it neither explains what these parameters control nor how they relate to the 'multi-pass' behavior. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 states 'multi-pass truth-finding search with cross-source verification,' which indicates a search tool that verifies across sources. However, it is vague about what the tool actually returns or produces, and it does not clearly differentiate it from the sibling `infobroker_web_search`. The verb 'corroborate' implies validation, but the description does not specify the resource or output format.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling `infobroker_web_search`. The description does not explain the situations that would call for multi-pass truth-finding versus a standard web search, nor does it mention alternative tools or exclusions. Usage context is entirely absent.

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