check_fact_integrity

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

With no annotations, the description clearly states it checks integrity and returns a breakdown, implying a read-only operation. It adds value beyond the schema by describing the return.

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 extremely concise, with the main purpose front-loaded and no extraneous words. Every sentence 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?

The description lacks detail on prerequisites (e.g., fact must exist) and the return structure ('IntegrityCheckResult with source status breakdown') is vague. Without an output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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%, but the description provides parameter meaning ('fact_id: Fact UUID string'), which adds specificity beyond the schema's bare title. For a single parameter, this is adequate.

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 ('Check integrity') and resource ('fact's sources'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_facts_with_stale_sources or revalidate_fact_sources.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_facts_with_stale_sources or revalidate_fact_sources. Agents must infer context implicitly.

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