temporal_verify

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

No annotations are present, so the description itself must convey behavior. It adds meaningful traits: deterministic execution, anti-hallucination purpose, and a structured-facts return. It does not document error behavior or exact output shape, which keeps this from a 5, but it is adequate for a read-only verification 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core function; examples are illustrative rather than filler. The final return promise is useful and 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives good usage context and examples, but it leaves the structure of the returned facts unspecified and does not clarify how claim relates to optional date/datetime/timezone. An agent can construct a call, but may not know how to consume the response.

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 schema already describes date, datetime, timezone, and claim at roughly 75% coverage. The description's examples illustrate how claim/date/timezone are used ('3 PM London before 10 AM New York') but adds no explicit parameter constraints beyond the schema.

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 action ('verify') on the object 'temporal claim' and gives four concrete examples that make the tool's range unambiguous. This clearly separates it from conversion/formatting siblings like convert_time and format_time.

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 gives a clear when-to-use: whenever a temporal claim needs deterministic verification to avoid hallucinations. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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