verify_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: extraction of numbers, relative error comparison, return of match status. It also notes accuracy impact when table_id is omitted. No contradictory information.

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?

Description is structured with a summary, then Args and Returns sections. It is efficient but slightly verbose with the code-style blocks. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 covers inputs, process, and output fields (VerifyResult). It mentions the accuracy trade-off for table_id. Output fields are described, compensating for lack of output schema in context.

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%, but the description explains each parameter: claim (the statement), table_id (optional, format, accuracy impact), tolerance (default 0.01). Adds meaning beyond schema.

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 verifies numeric claims against KOSIS data, specifying the action (verify) and resource (KOSIS). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_statistics or browse_categories by focusing on verification of claims.

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 explains the tool is used to verify claims with numbers, time, region, and indicator. It gives context about the extraction process but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools.

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