verify_thesis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'retrieve' wording is consistent with that. It adds useful context about separating facts, expectations, and prices, but it does not explain mechanics such as how cutoff_date affects the retrieval or what 'verify thesis dimensions' concretely entails.

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 a single compact sentence with front-loaded action and useful output categories. It avoids fluff, though the phrase 'verify thesis dimensions' is somewhat vague and could be clearer without adding length.

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?

The tool has annotations and an output schema, which lowers the burden on the description. However, the description leaves ambiguity around when to use this tool versus siblings and does not clarify cutoff_date semantics, making it only minimally complete for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain thesis_id beyond what the schema shows, and cutoff_date's role is only vaguely hinted at by 'subsequent events'. This is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 names a specific action ('retrieve subsequent events') and resource ('thesis'), and adds meaningful output detail ('separate facts, expectations and prices'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like read_evidence or validate_research_output, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the tool is for verifying a thesis using subsequent events, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as read_evidence or validate_research_output. There is no explicit usage context or exclusion criteria.

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