The accuracy record

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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses important behavior: results are recomputed on every call, failures are included, unreachable checks are excluded from the pass rate, and the exact denominator is provided. It even clarifies edge cases like bot walls and client-rendered pages. This is strong behavioral disclosure.

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 longer than minimal but every sentence adds substantive information: what the record contains, how unreachable checks are treated, and how the numbers should be used. It is dense rather than padded, though the opening sentence is a bit contextual rather than an immediate verb-first statement.

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 read-only accuracy-record tool with an output schema, the description covers the main behavior, return contents, edge cases, and even the public accuracy API. The agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret the result without guessing.

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 input schema already fully documents the single response_format parameter with an enum and a description of concise versus detailed output. The tool description adds nothing about this parameter, so the baseline score is appropriate; there is no semantic gap to compensate for.

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 uses a clear verb ('returns') and names the exact resource: the verification accuracy record with confidence mix, check counts, pass rates, denominator, per-venue details, and level definitions. This is highly specific and clearly distinct from the sibling showtime and theater tools.

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 makes the intended use obvious: when accuracy numbers are needed, quote the returned record directly, and it explains how unreachable checks are handled so the numbers are not misused. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use X instead,' but the context is clear enough.

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