verify_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool consumes detect quota (a side effect) and describes the return structure (red/yellow/green summary, per-claim details, citations, quota). However, it does not mention potential rate limits, authentication, or any other operational behaviors. The disclosure is partial but not misleading.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('逐声明幻觉核验') and follows with the pipeline and output details. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant fluff. It is concise yet information-dense, though it could benefit from bullet points for readability.

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 that there is no output schema, the description appropriately describes the return format (summary, per-claim details, citations, quota). It also mentions the quota cost. However, it does not address error scenarios, retry behavior, or any edge cases like empty text (though schema enforces minLength). For a tool with this complexity and 5 parameters, the description is mostly complete but could mention what happens on failure.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema itself provides clear meanings for each field. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific context beyond the overall pipeline. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 function: verifying statements in input text for hallucinations, with a specific pipeline (extract claims, verify each) and output types. It is specific about the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like verify_agent, though the name 'verify_text' suggests a text-focused scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when it is appropriate or when to choose verify_agent or other siblings. The only usage-related note is that it consumes detect quota, which is a cost constraint but not a usage guideline.

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