verify_answer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does describe the return value (decision, evidence, regulatory mapping, record with content hash), which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it stores or modifies any data, or what side effects might occur. For a verification tool, this is a notable gap, especially since the action of returning a 'sealed record' implies some immutability but not explicitly a non-destructive operation.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core action in the first sentence. It then efficiently lists input format variants and the return contents. The multi-line formatting with indentation is slightly unconventional but does not harm readability. There is minimal redundancy, and every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 5 parameters (2 required) and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the key inputs (sources, policy) and mentions the return structure. However, it omits explanation of 'locale' and 'question', and does not provide usage context relative to sibling tools or error scenarios. The presence of an output schema lightens the need to detail return fields, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of sibling differentiation reduce completeness.

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 explains the semantics of 'sources' (formats) and 'policy' (built-in, path, YAML). The 'answer' parameter is implicitly clear from the first sentence. However, 'locale' and 'question' are not described at all. Thus, the description covers only a portion of the parameters, leaving two parameters with no guidance beyond their names.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Verify an answer against its sources under a policy and return the sealed record.' This distinguishes it from siblings (verify_run, verify_records) by focusing on answer verification, which is a distinct operation.

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 usage details such as acceptable formats for sources (id/text pairs, dicts, strings) and policy (built-in name, path, YAML), which implicitly guides the caller. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools verify_run or verify_records, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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