verify_claims

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format: 'scored evidence ledger... Markdown summary with unverified/retracted items struck through.' However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (likely) or any side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the second describes the output. Every phrase adds value.

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 presence of an output schema (mentioned but not shown), the description needn't detail return values, yet it does. It omits error handling, prerequisites, or usage context, but for a batch verification tool, the coverage is strong.

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 input schema has one parameter 'claims' with description coverage 0%. The description adds that it expects a 'list of citations and/or factual claims', which provides context beyond the schema's type/array definition. However, it does not specify string format, validation, or constraints.

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 'Batch-verify a list of citations and/or factual claims in one call.' It specifies the action (verify) and the resource (a list of citations/claims), distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_citation, verify_stat, and verify_bibliography, which handle individual items.

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 implies batch use ('in one call') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the individual verification siblings. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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