check_claim_support

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states only the purpose, with no disclosure of output format, side effects, or what 'sufficiently supported' implies. The agent cannot infer if the tool returns boolean or confidence scores.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or separation of parameter info, which would improve readability.

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 has 3 parameters (including a potentially large 'article_text'), no output schema, and no param descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain inputs, outputs, or the meaning of 'fail-closed filtering', making it hard for an agent to use correctly.

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% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters ('claim', 'context', 'article_text'). The agent receives no guidance on input format, constraints, or the role of the optional 'context' parameter.

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 specifies the verb 'Check' and the resource 'claim support by article text', with a specific context 'for fail-closed filtering'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_fire_compartment_evidence' which operate on different domains.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools include other 'check_*' functions, but no conditions or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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