Challenge a claim

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds value by promising concrete outputs—support, contradiction, assumptions, missing evidence, and next action—which is useful context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary action appears first and the output summary follows. Every clause 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 six parameters and no output schema, the description gives a helpful list of result categories but not their structure or semantics. It leaves the agent to infer how evidence, context, and output fields interrelate, so it is minimally viable but not complete.

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 100%, so the baseline applies; the description does not introduce meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It merely names claim and evidence, which are also documented in the input 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?

The description uses a specific action ('Classify... from supplied evidence') and names the object (technical claim), so the purpose is immediately clear. However, it does not contrast itself with the sibling tools verify, audit, prove_it, and reality_check, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

'From supplied evidence' implies the tool is appropriate when evidence is available and a claim needs classification, but there is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The boundary against verify/audit/prove_it/reality_check is left entirely to inference.

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