pro_verify

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: pricing (~$0.35), payment via x402, no silent charges, abstains rather than guess, never fabricates citations, and returns a signed Ed25519 receipt. This is thorough and gives the agent confidence in invoking the tool.

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 long but well-structured with clear sections (pricing, returns, behavior). Each sentence adds information, though the parenthetical on OWASP mapping is somewhat tangential and could be trimmed. Overall, it is appropriately dense without being 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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (verdict, confidence, reasoning, evidence, receipt). It also covers pricing, payment, and abstention behavior, making it nearly self-sufficient for an agent. The only minor omission is the 'context' parameter, but this does not significantly hurt completeness.

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 affiliate_id ('never changes price or behavior') and claim is obvious from the tool's purpose, but the 'context' parameter is never described. This leaves a semantic gap for a parameter that could affect verification results.

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 performs a 'Premium, web-GROUNDED reality-check on a CLAIM — the deepest tier.' The verb 'reality-check' and resource 'CLAIM' are specific, and the 'deepest tier' phrase distinguishes it from sibling verification tools like quick_verify and grounded_verify.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'reach for it when a claim is high-stakes and the grounded tier's answer isn't confident enough to act on.' It also mentions verify_receipt for free re-checks, offering an alternative path. This clearly indicates when to use the tool versus alternatives.

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