verify_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that the tool returns only matching excerpts, does NOT judge, and treats absent evidence as NOT SUPPORTED. It doesn't mention rate limits or permissions, but for a read-only evidence check this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, output format, non-judgment behavior, missing-evidence rule, and usage intent are all covered in a compact, front-loaded structure. It is substantive without being bloated.

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 tool has an output schema, so return value details needn't be repeated. The description covers purpose, output, interpretation, and usage, making it self-sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. It could slightly improve by mentioning relationship to sibling search tools, but overall it is complete.

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 provides helpful examples for the `claim` parameter but offers no explanation of country, insurer_slug, or product_name beyond the parameter names. Most parameters' expected values and formats remain undefined.

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 function: a verbatim evidence check for ONE factual claim about a product. It names the returned artifacts (document excerpts) and explicitly says the tool does NOT judge, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, get_page, or compare_products.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use it: as a self-check before asserting product facts. It also explains how to handle missing evidence. However, it doesn't name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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