Explain Verdict Semantics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral risk: verdicts are easy to overstate, which is the failure mode this tool guards against. For a zero-param, read-only explainer there is little else to disclose (no auth, side effects, or rate limits implied), so this is adequate but adds only moderate behavioral context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the trigger, then the rationale. The final clause is somewhat rhetorical but reinforces why the tool matters, so it earns its place without much waste.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the return values need not be described, and the definition says enough for an agent to know what it does and when to call it. The only minor gap is the absence of any note on what form the explanation takes, which the output schema presumably covers.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies and nothing in the description misrepresents the (empty) input contract.

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 (explain) and a specific resource (what Polygraph's three verdicts mean and do not mean). This is clearly distinguishable from the data-fetching siblings (can_i_trust, get_integrity_score, list_undeclared_sources), all of which retrieve results rather than explain terminology.

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?

"Call this before presenting verdicts to a person" gives an explicit, actionable trigger condition tied to a recognizable workflow moment. It doesn't name alternatives or a when-not case, but for a standalone explainer tool the conditional is clear and sufficient.

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