verify_finding

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the default-to-latest-report rule, the fact that rescan writes a new saved report (consistent with readOnlyHint=false), the full enumerated verdict set, and the crucial semantic 'APSA never refutes a claim.' No permission/rate-limit context is given, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then inputs, then report behavior, then verdict values. Dense but each clause carries information; the long verdict enumeration is the only mildly costly element.

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?

For a 7-parameter verification tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: accepted identifier forms, report/report_id/rescan interaction, and the meaning of every possible verdict outcome.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry semantics and largely does: it maps rule/weakness to accepted ID formats, describes path plus line as an optional locator, and explains report_id and rescan. Target formatting and the exact difference between rule and weakness inputs remain slightly under-specified.

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?

States a specific verb (cross-check) and resource (a mobile finding claimed elsewhere) against a named evidence source for a named target. The parenthetical example of an AI code reviewer makes the scenario concrete, and no sibling tool (reports_*, audit_*, intelligence_*) does this, so an agent can differentiate it without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the input contract (MASWE-NNNN or CWE-N weakness or APSA rule ID, optionally path/line) and the report-selection rule (latest report unless report_id is given; rescan=true scans first and saves). It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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