verify_stat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses fallback to web search, data source (World Bank), and return type (verdict with actual value). This is sufficient for a safe, non-destructive 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 clear sentences with no extraneous words. The action verb and purpose are front-loaded. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 5 parameters (one required) and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, return values, and fallback. It does not detail error cases or edge conditions, but it is adequate for correct tool selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the roles of country, year, claimed_value, and indicator. The 'claim' parameter is implied by the example. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 explicitly states it verifies numeric/statistical claims against World Bank data, with a concrete example. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'verify_claims' or 'verify_citation' which handle other types of claims.

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 advises passing country/year/claimed_value and optionally an indicator for precision, and notes fallback behavior. It provides clear usage context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to related tools.

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