verify_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it provides substantial detail: the possible verdicts, confidence, reason language, evidence, checks, identity, risk signals, cache hits, engine notes, and trace ID. It also exposes meaningful behavior through the `options` overrides (`min_sources`, `allow_tier3`, `history_days`). It does not mention authorization, rate limits, or side effects, but the behavior is readable.

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 front-loaded with the single-sentence purpose, followed by a compact Args list and a compact Returns list. Every line adds information needed to call the tool, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 verification tool with a rich return shape, the description covers the action, all parameters, and the output structure. The main gap is not guiding the agent relative to siblings, and the semantics of the `options` keys are only implicit, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool.

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 define the parameters, and it does: `project` is exemplified, `url` is scoped to download/installer/repository/model/data URLs, `description` is explained with a concrete phrase, and `options` has literal defaults. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opening sentence names a specific action and resource: verify that a `url` is an official/legitimate source for `project`. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools `get_verification` and `list_known_identities`, which suggest retrieval and listing rather than on-demand verification.

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 implies the natural use case through 'Verify that ...' and the verdict return values, but it never states when to choose this over `get_verification` or `list_known_identities`, nor does it give exclusions or alternative routing. This is adequate but not explicit.

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