verify_answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does reasonably well. It discloses that the tool checks provenance of numbers, that it can return unverified numbers, and that those numbers should not be paraphrased. It does not describe exact output structure, but an output schema exists and is not the description's primary job.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives direct usage instructions, and the third adds a critical behavioral constraint. Every sentence earns its place without fluff or redundant explanation.

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 simple two-parameter shape, the presence of an output schema, and the lack of annotations, the description covers the essential calling context and post-call behavior reasonably. It could more explicitly explain how `result_id` is obtained, but the cited-result language and sibling context make it inferable.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: `text` is the answer text to verify, and 'the result it cites' implies `result_id` is the identifier of the result that the text references. This is sufficient for a two-parameter tool, though it does not explicitly spell out the parameter names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check that every number in `text` came from the result it cites.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its metric-listing/querying siblings, since verify_answer is about validating an answer rather than retrieving metrics.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to call the tool: 'Call this on the answer you intend to give, before giving it.' It also explains what to do with the result, such as fixing the answer or saying less, and warns against restating rejected numbers. It does not name alternative tools for exclusion, but the usage context is clear.

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