verify_fact

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses return structure (verdict, confidence, reasoning, evidence) and the abstain behavior. It also implies web access. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, failure modes, or data freshness, which would improve transparency.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, including usage guidance and return details. No fluff.

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 covers return values adequately. It explains when to use and what to expect. Missing is a note on how 'context' parameter affects behavior, but overall it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 explain parameters. It explains 'claim' as a factual statement to verify, but the 'context' parameter is not described at all. With two parameters, partial coverage reduces score.

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 checks whether a factual claim is true using live web grounding. It specifies the verb 'check' and the resource 'factual claim', and distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., guard_action) which handle different concerns.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before an agent acts on, repeats, or surfaces a fact it isn't certain of', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also mentions it catches hallucinations, and that it abstains rather than guesses, setting appropriate expectations.

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