Verify Claims

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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations: it discloses multiple searches bounded by max_iterations, provider rate limits, knowledge base recall and indexing side effects, and the [OK]/[ERROR] envelope. This meaningfully informs an agent about cost, non-idempotence, and side effects, and does not contradict annotations.

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 dense but mostly purposeful, front-loading the core function and return value before usage guidance and limits. A minor redundancy exists between 'multi-pass' and 'Makes multiple searches,' but overall every sentence contributes meaningful decision or behavioral context.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers return format, confidence scoring, source attribution, side effects, and failure prefixing. For a complex, multi-call tool with no structured output definition, this is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive and what the tool will do.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds interpretive context for max_iterations and confidence_threshold, but does not add meaning beyond the schema for query, priority, or providers. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 specifies a rich, specific operation: a multi-pass truth-finding loop that searches providers, reconciles claims, and returns confidence-scored, source-attributed findings. This clearly distinguishes it from simpler sibling search or citation tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (high-stakes or contested claims needing agreement, contradiction, gaps) and when not to use simple lookups or citation formatting, naming web_search and get_citations as alternatives. This is ideal routing guidance.

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