Verify a claim against evidence

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those traits. It adds that the operation evaluates one claim against caller-supplied evidence, but it does not describe validation behavior, failure modes, or how case and policy affect the decision.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity leaves important semantics unstated; 'with probity-verify' is the only potentially expendable phrase.

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?

The tool has three parameters, two required nested objects, and 0% schema description coverage, so the description needs to carry significant input semantics. It does not do so, and although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the agent still lacks enough information to populate case, policy, and artifacts correctly.

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% across three parameters, including two required nested objects. The description mentions 'claim' and 'evidence bytes,' which loosely gestures at the domain, but it never explains the required case or policy objects and only vaguely suggests artifacts.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Decide one claim against evidence bytes the caller supplies.' This clearly identifies a verification operation on a single claim, but it does not distinguish the tool from sibling verifiers such as verify_dsse or verify_sample.

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 sentence implies that the caller supplies evidence bytes, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives. In a family containing verify_dsse and verify_sample, the agent is left to infer which verifier applies.

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