verify_fix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that this is fast, deterministic, has no crawl and no judge, returns whether the rule still fires plus other deterministic findings, and warns that whole-site rules can pass here but still fail a full audit. The scope limitation ('clear verdict covers the ONE page it loads') is clearly stated.

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 average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, return behavior, regression-guard semantics, alternative tool routing, and scope caveats. The most decision-relevant info is front-loaded, and the caveats are deliberately packaged at the end.

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 having no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly: it states what triggers usage, what is returned, what the tool does not do, and when to fall back to audit_url. No critical decision or invocation detail is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents base, rule, route, and states. The description reinforces the conceptual 'one rule on one page' model but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific verb (re-check/verify), resource (ONE rule on ONE page), and the exact workflow context ('After editing to fix a finding'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from a full re-audit and from the sibling audit_url, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 says exactly when to use it (the 'did my fix land?' loop after an edit) and when not to use it (for whole-page pictures, judge/state checks, or whole-site rules, re-run audit_url). This is explicit, actionable routing guidance that names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it.

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