verify_strict

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of higher abstention threshold, but does not describe output format, whether it is read-only, or other side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words, efficiently conveying purpose and usage 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?

No output schema and no annotations; description does not explain return values or error states. However, given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, it provides enough for basic use.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. Description adds no extra meaning beyond stating similarity to verify_claim, but schema descriptions are sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states it's the same as verify_claim but with a raised abstention threshold, distinguishing it from siblings. It names the verb+resource (verify claim) and the specific behavioral difference.

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 advises use when a wrong 'Supported' is costly (compliance, legal, medical-adjacent), implying when not to use (low-cost errors). Could be improved by directly stating alternatives like verify_claim.

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