run_source_policy_acceptance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the verification purpose but does not indicate side effects (e.g., read-only vs. mutation), required permissions, output format, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, clear sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

Despite zero parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness for a verification tool. It does not explain what 'complete' means, what constitutes a pass/fail, or what the tool returns. Compared to siblings like run_audit_gates (likely more detailed), this is inadequate.

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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is required.

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 purpose: verifying P0 article sources have complete official-source policy evidence and comparison coverage. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('sources'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that check other aspects or perform different acceptance tests.

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 versus its many sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It fails to help an agent decide between tools like check_claim_support or run_audit_gates.

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