verify_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the three possible outcomes and mentions that a certificate and counterexample accompany the result. However, it doesn't state whether any side effects exist or clarify the nature of the certificate, leaving some ambiguity.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and outcome. No filler words; every element 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core function and return categories, but lacks details on input formatting, the certificate's structure, and when ABSTAIN occurs. The absence of an output schema makes these omissions more significant.

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 has one parameter 'claim' with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'math/finance claim' adds domain context to the parameter, but it doesn't specify the expected format or provide examples, leaving the agent to infer.

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 verb 'verify' and names the resource as 'math/finance claim'. The arrow and outcome labels (VERIFY/REFUTE/ABSTAIN) clearly distinguish it from siblings like audit_rows or diff_rows, which address different operations.

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 usage for verifying math/finance claims but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, no alternatives mentioned, and no exclusions. Context is present but shallow.

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