factcheck

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the return structure (verdict, confidence, primary sources, freshness, contradictions, evidence) and implicitly indicates a non-mutating, read-only operation ('verify'). However, it does not disclose potential details like rate limits, authentication requirements, error behavior, or side effects, which could be relevant for an agent 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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the key output components. There is no filler or redundant information. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function and result.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the semantics of the 'depth' options or how to populate the 'context' object, leaving gaps for a tool with nested parameters and no annotations. Overall, it covers the essential purpose and outputs but misses some operational details.

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 only 33% (only 'claim' has a description). The tool description does not explain the 'depth' parameter (quick/standard/deep) or the 'context' object and its fields, which are undocumented in the schema. While the description refers to 'factual claim,' it adds no semantic detail about how to use these parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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's function: 'Verify a factual claim before acting on it.' This provides a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('factual claim'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'verify_transaction' by focusing on factual claims rather than transactions. The mention of return values (verdict, confidence, primary sources, etc.) further clarifies the purpose.

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 phrase 'before acting on it' gives a clear context for when to use the tool — whenever a factual claim needs verification prior to making a decision or proceeding. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'verify_transaction'. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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