verify_outcome

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

Annotations already declare it a safe read-only operation, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it returns one of three outcomes plus evidence, and its verdict is authoritative over other results. It does not disclose how long checks take, whether they can be re-run, or what "independent" means operationally.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return shape, then the authority caveat. No filler, though the middle of the definition is under-specified rather than over-written.

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 description does cover the return values, which is important given there is no output schema. But for a single-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, it omits the one thing an agent most needs: what plan_id designates and where to obtain it.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining plan_id, and it says nothing about it. An agent must guess whether plan_id refers to a workflow proposal, an execution run, or a saved workflow identifier.

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?

"Run the independent checks" gives a verb and a notion of independent verification, but never names the resource being verified or what a "check" comprises. It is distinguishable from execute_workflow by the pass/fail framing, but an agent cannot tell from the text what is actually being checked.

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 only guidance is the emphatic "Only this result counts as success," which implies this should be called instead of trusting execute_workflow output, but no alternative is named and no trigger condition is stated. Nothing says when in the workflow lifecycle to call it, or that plan_id comes from a prior execute_workflow/discover_capabilities call.

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