classifier_corroborate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the high-level behavior (combining classifier prior with evidence from OONI, IODA, CensoredPlanet) but does not detail read-only nature, authentication needs, 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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and usage. No wasted words; every sentence is informative.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (posterior probability) and data sources. It covers all parameters and provides enough context for a specific claim verification 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% and both parameters have descriptions (ISO code, date format). The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 clearly states the tool performs 'Bayesian corroboration for a country-day claim' and returns a 'posterior probability that censorship occurred', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'classifier_score' and 'verify_claim' by emphasizing multi-source evidence combination.

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 using the tool 'to verify a specific claim' with an example, providing clear context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the purpose is well-defined among siblings.

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