verify_reasoning

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (verdict, confidence_score, certificate_id, etc.) and explains the meaning of VALID/INVALID verdicts. It does not mention any side effects or state changes, but the tool appears read-only.

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 well-structured: purpose sentence, usage context, parameter list, and return summary. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no extraneous words.

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 5 parameters, 1 required, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and return values. It could mention prerequisites or error handling, but the output schema exists to supplement this.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter: reasoning (plain text), retain (default from env var), source_url (optional), domain (hints for classification), and metadata (constraints on keys and size). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool verifies a multi-step reasoning chain and returns a Prova certificate summary. It specifies the intended use case ('before producing a final answer') and the tool's distinct role compared to sibling tools that focus on formal proof verification.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('on any draft chain-of-thought before producing a final answer') and what to do in case of an INVALID verdict (repair and re-verify). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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