verify_sinks

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the comparison mechanism ('compares (filing_id, document_sha256) sets'), the bounded nature of output ('returns a bounded sample'), and the kinds of discrepancies found ('missing/extra/mismatched ids'). This gives the agent a clear, accurate model 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 core purpose, followed by precise mechanics and a requirement. Every sentence contributes useful information; the only mild redundancy is restating read-only behavior already present in annotations, but it is brief and does not hurt clarity.

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?

For a parameterless, read-only verification tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke it: what it checks, what it returns, its precondition, and its safety profile. No critical context is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema, which is already complete. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and requirements rather than parameter syntax.

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 identifies a specific verb ('verify'/'check') and resource ('configured sinks' holding 'filings and document hashes'), and clearly conveys a consistency-checking purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_parity, which may perform related verification, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 states the condition for use ('requires two or more comparable sinks') and the scenario ('check that configured sinks hold the same filings and document hashes'). It does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative sibling tools, leaving some usage routing implicit.

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