validate_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It discloses the return types (supports/contradicts/does-not-cover plus citation) and adds a disclaimer ('not medical advice'). Missing information on permissions, rate limits, or any side effects, but for a read-only lookup this is minimally adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then an illustrative example, then usage guidance and disclaimer. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, input semantics, and output summary completely. No obvious gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds a concrete example for 'statement' and clarifies 'lens' as a condition filter, but does not significantly extend beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('fact-check') and identifies the resource ('Clarity's human-curated, evidence-graded database'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_ingredient or check_interaction by targeting free-text claims rather than specific entities.

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 ending sentence explicitly states when to use the tool: 'check whether a health claim an agent already holds aligns with Clarity's curation.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like check_ingredient for structured queries.

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