verify_research

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool makes live network calls, requires specific environment variables, and describes the return structure including cross-source Jaccard consistency and conflict detection. This provides clear understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return structure, dependencies, and alternative tool. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is optimally concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return structure, prerequisites, and usage context. It provides enough information for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema for some parameters: it clarifies that 'verificationQueries' are alternate phrasings and 'minConsistencyThreshold' is used to mark claims as 'verified'. While not extensive, it adds value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Cross-verify a factual claim across multiple web sources via Exa and return a structured confidence verdict.' It uses a specific verb ('cross-verify') and resource ('factual claim'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'perspective_shifter' by explicitly contrasting use cases.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'To generate alternative viewpoints instead of verifying facts, use perspective_shifter.' It also specifies prerequisites: 'Requires EXA_API_KEY and ENABLE_RESEARCH_INTEGRATION=true and makes live network calls; it fails without them.'

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