Audit a chat interpretation claim

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific audit criteria (evidence, alternatives, missing context, confidence, falsifying checks), which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain what happens after the check or how findings are reported.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause names a distinct audit criterion and earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple audit with no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what the audit returns (e.g., pass/fail, findings). It lists the criteria but omits return behavior and usage context, leaving a notable gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the concepts behind three of the four parameters (evidenceExcerpts, alternativeExplanations, missingContext) and implies the claim, but it does not indicate that these are arrays, mention length limits, or fully describe the required claim parameter.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check whether') and a clear resource ('proposed interpretation'), and it enumerates the audit criteria. It does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., build_chat_analysis_brief, score_interaction_signals), so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are mentioned. The agent must infer the context from the tool name alone.

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