Verify Claims

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

The description discloses that the tool runs a loop, searches providers, reconciles claims, and 'indexes its findings back into' the knowledge base, implying a write side-effect. It also mentions per-provider rate limits. However, it does not explicitly state that it may modify the KB or mention any potential costs, leaving some ambiguity about the exact mutation behavior.

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 highly redundant, repeating the same concepts multiple times (e.g., 'truth-finding loop', 'confidence-scored findings', 'indexes its findings'). It could be condensed to a few sentences without losing any information. The structure is a dense block, making it harder to parse quickly.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how it behaves (including side effects), and how to configure key parameters. It also provides context on when to use it and mentions constraints like rate limits and iteration bounds. Minor gaps remain, such as not specifying the exact response structure beyond a 'JSON envelope'.

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 already covers all five parameters, so the description adds limited new detail. It does clarify that 'query' should be a plain claim rather than a question and that 'priority' routes by intent, which slightly enriches the schema's descriptions. Overall, the schema does the heavy lifting, but the additions provide modest extra guidance.

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 purpose: runs a truth-finding loop to reconcile claims across multiple providers and returns confidence-scored findings with attribution. It also specifies when to use it (high-stakes or contested claims) and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_web and get_citations.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when not to use the tool (simple lookups, broad search, citation formatting) by naming alternative tools. It also gives a concrete use case (high-stakes/contested claims) and explains key behaviors like bounding iterations and applying confidence thresholds.

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