proof_card

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the fail-closed policy, the exact failure return shape ({verified:false, content:null}), and the verification criterion (verbatim in the advisor's P1/P2 corpus). It omits permissions and success-path output shape, but the core behavioral traits are explicit.

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, and the fail-closed clause plus the parameter format each earn their place. The closing phrase about 'the essence is torn' is flavor text that could be cut, but overall it is dense rather than bloated.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the failure return shape and the verification precondition. The success-path card content is only loosely specified, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains advisor_dir's expected format (advisors/{name} or lenses/{name}), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about the quote parameter beyond what its name implies. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: it produces a self-contained HTML card for ONE quote with its source and a verification badge. An agent can tell what artifact it creates. It does not, however, differentiate itself from related siblings such as cite, fidelity_check, or atomic_grounding.

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?

It describes the fail-closed condition (non-verbatim quote yields no card), which is a behavior rather than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over cite or fidelity_check, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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