verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses deterministic no-LLM execution, exact tri-state outcomes, quote requirements, authority comparison rules, and a critical presentation constraint. This is unusually complete for a verification tool.

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 tight sentences with no waste. The verification mechanism, outcome taxonomy, and presentation rule are front-loaded in a logical order.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description must explain return values and interpretation, and it does so completely: GROUNDED, CONTRADICTED, and UNSUPPORTED are clearly defined. The one-parameter scope is unambiguous given 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 100% and the single 'claim' parameter is already defined as 'A single factual statement to verify.' The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb 'verify', resource 'claim against the corpus', and a distinctive mechanism ('no LLM') that separates it from search and quote siblings. It also names the three possible verdicts, making the tool's adjudicative purpose immediately clear.

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 the tool is for checking a single factual claim, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of search or quote. The rule 'Only GROUNDED may be presented as fact' is a downstream usage constraint rather than routing guidance.

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