verify_claims

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses evaluation criteria (freshness, authoritative source class, independent source groups, conflicts, jurisdiction, exact subject identifiers), return verdicts, limitations (no live retrieval, verified means threshold met, not absolute truth), and requirement for human review. Completely transparent for a claim verification tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by critical caveats. Every sentence earns its place; no unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, description explains the five possible return verdicts. Covers input requirements (caller-supplied evidence), evaluation criteria, limitations, and required human oversight. Sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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% for a single required parameter (request_json), so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the verification process factors (freshness, source class, etc.) that the request likely encodes, giving semantic context beyond the schema's generic description 'Claim verification request matching claim-verification-request.schema.json'.

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?

Clearly states the tool issues a bounded factual Claim Verdict from evidence records, lists verdict types (verified, contradicted, partially_supported, unresolved, not_verifiable), and explicitly distinguishes what it does not do (no source discovery, no live retrieval). Specific verb 'Issue a Claim Verdict' and resource 'evidence records'.

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?

Provides clear context: requires caller-supplied evidence records, evaluates specific factors, and notes human review remains required. Implicitly guides when to use (when evidence is available) and caveats (not absolute truth). No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use compared to sibling tools, but the description is instructive.

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