Verify a legal quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the return values (exact_match, normalized_match, no_match) and the single-anchor limitation, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the verb and scope and immediately communicates the output. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 conceptually simple, and the output schema exists (though not shown) and annotations are rich, lowering the bar. The description covers the purpose and return values, but the unresolved parameter semantics (especially evidence_id vs anchor_id) leaves an agent with incomplete knowledge to call the tool correctly. A brief explanation of the parameters would make it fully complete.

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 by explaining parameter meanings. It mentions 'quote' and 'stored evidence anchor' but does not clarify the distinction between anchor_id and evidence_id, nor does it explain their formats or relationships. This is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect parameter values.

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 ('Compare') and a precise resource ('a quote' against 'one stored evidence anchor'), and explicitly qualifies the scope with 'only'. This clearly distinguishes the verification tool from sibling retrieval tools like search_eu_law or get_document_timeline, which are for fetching data, not matching.

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 clearly conveys the tool's singular purpose and its constraint to a single anchor, which implies its place among alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'only' phrase gives a strong contextual hint but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling references.

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