verify_natal_claims

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the verdict set (supported/contradicted/unverified), the caveat that quote text is echoed and not parsed, and the hard limits (does not validate an entire report or detect omitted claims). That last sentence prevents a costly misinterpretation of the tool's authority.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, then return values, then limitations, then the follow-up rule. No restatement of the name and no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the three verdicts and mentions source fields, so an agent knows what comes back. Combined with the stated scope limits and the reference-provenance rule, nothing material for a correct invocation is missing (the 100-claim batch cap lives in the schema).

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 reported as 0%, so the description has to carry weight; it explains how 'reference' is sourced (copied unchanged from calculate_natal_chart) and how 'claims' should be submitted (each with its exact draft quote). It does not explain the claim fields kind/point/value/scope, which the schema does cover despite the coverage metric.

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?

States a concrete verb (verify) and a precise resource (natal sign/house/retrograde/aspect assertions) checked against a fresh server calculation. The 'natal' qualifier plus the explicit list of supported claim kinds separates it from generic siblings like verify_calculation_claims, though it never names that sibling to close the loop.

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?

Gives a clear workflow precondition ('Copy fact_reference unchanged from calculate_natal_chart') and explicit exclusions ('Unsupported facts, other chart types and psychological interpretations are unverified'), plus a follow-up instruction ('Fix contradicted claims before answering'). It stops short of routing non-natal cases to verify_calculation_claims by name, so the alternative-selection step is left implicit.

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