Verify claims against evidence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains what the tool returns per claim—verdict, probability distribution, confidence, and auto/review status—and implies a confidence-threshold behavior through the output. It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but the verification behavior is a read-only-style computation and the output behavior is detailed enough for an agent to anticipate the result.

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 three sentences and every one earns its place: core action, return format, and practical usage mapping. The most important information is front-loaded, and the writing is compact without sacrificing the behavioral detail an agent needs.

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 tool with two required parameters, one optional threshold, and no output schema, the description covers both what the agent should pass and what it should expect back. The evidence parameter's ability to accept multiple items and map claims to evidence is handled partly by the schema and partly by the description, leaving only minor gaps around exact output formatting.

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 already documents all three parameters, so the description does not need to repeat their mechanics. The description adds useful mapping examples ('reports, PR descriptions, or agent briefs' as claims; 'cited sources, diffs, or documents' as evidence), but it does not add meaning to auto_accept beyond the schema, giving it only modest added value at this coverage level.

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 names a specific action ('Check each claim against provided evidence text') and a distinct resource ('TypeSafe Jev'), making the tool's core function unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings jev_screen and jev_find, but the verification purpose and return categories are specific enough for an agent to separate it from those names.

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 gives concrete usage context: pass reports, PR descriptions, or agent briefs as claims, and cited sources, diffs, or documents as evidence. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the input examples provide clear practical guidance for selecting appropriate content.

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