Verify Claims

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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the actual write-back loop ('searches providers and writes findings back'), the KB recall step, per-provider rate limits, and the max_iterations refinement bound. It also explains how below-threshold findings are downgraded to 'unverified', which no annotation conveys.

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?

Purpose and use/do-not-use guidance are front-loaded, and the operational detail follows in a single dense block. It is long, but nearly every clause contributes routing or behavioral information; a little trimming of overlapping phrases would make it tighter.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return contract — an [OK]/[ERROR] envelope listing confirmed, contested, and unverified findings with per-source claims and confidence scores. Combined with the loop/rate-limit notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the field docs: providers 'omitting it uses the full dispatch chain', priority routing intents (speed, quality, privacy, free_only), and that confidence_threshold determines which findings are reported unverified. max_iterations and query get less added 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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Verify a contested claim against independent sources and return confidence-scored findings' — and immediately separates this tool from infobroker_search_web (broad search) and infobroker_get_citations (citation formatting). An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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 gives an explicit inclusion condition ('high-stakes or contested') and explicit exclusions with named alternatives ('Do NOT use for simple lookups or broad search (use infobroker_search_web) or citation formatting (use infobroker_get_citations)'). Routing is unambiguous.

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