verify_market_claim

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that evaluation runs against 'primary evidence and divergence,' giving some behavioral flavor, but it never explains what the '5 gates' (named only in the annotation title) are, nor that idempotentHint=false implies repeated calls may yield different results.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the usage contexts are front-loaded ahead of the purpose statement. It is efficiently sized, though the leading 'Use when' construction slightly defers the core definition of the tool.

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 should signal what a caller receives back, yet it never describes the result shape (verdict, evidence, gate outcomes) or what 'divergence' means operationally. The '5 gates' concept central to the tool is only hinted at in the annotation title, not explained, leaving a meaningful gap for a non-trivial evaluation 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 100%, with each of the five parameters documented including examples, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for full coverage.

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 second sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Evaluates any market or strategic claim against primary evidence and divergence'), so an agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling verify_claim, leaving the boundary between the two ambiguous.

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 explicitly enumerates four triggering scenarios (evaluating a strategy, pressure-testing a hypothesis, finding counter-evidence, uncovering missing assumptions), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of any when-not condition or alternative routing, notably failing to mention verify_claim, the obvious competing tool.

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