system_one_verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: outputs are probability-based advisory verdicts, not proof, which informs how an agent should interpret results. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 one tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and follows with the essential advisory caveat, so every phrase earns its place.

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 no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and three parameters, the description is not complete enough. It fails to describe what a verdict actually looks like, how confidence is expressed, and how auto_accept affects behavior, leaving an agent to guess at call semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It clarifies that claims are checked against evidence, but it does not explain the auto_accept threshold, the accepted evidence formats, or constraints on claims. This leaves a key parameter semantically unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Verify claims against supplied evidence,' and adds the clarifying caveat that verdicts are 'probability-based advisory' rather than proof. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like classify or decide by making clear it judges claims against provided evidence rather than producing categorical outcomes.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a caller has discrete claims and supplied evidence to check. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings such as system_one_review, system_one_compare, or system_one_decide, and it gives no exclusions or alternative conditions.

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