deep_verify_claim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost ($0.005 USDC) and service provider ('groundtruth'), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely involves external API calls and paid services.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and features, and another providing cost and service info. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly, and some redundancy exists (e.g., 'verification' is implied in the name).

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 complexity (multi-source verification with analysis), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses critical details like what the output contains (e.g., verification results, contradictions), how domain analysis works, and operational constraints (e.g., response time, error cases). The cost and service info are helpful but insufficient.

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 33% (only 'domain' has a description), so the description must compensate but doesn't mention parameters at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'claim' should contain or how 'require_sources' affects verification depth. The baseline is 3 due to low coverage, but the description doesn't improve upon it.

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 'deep multi-source verification with contradictions and domain analysis', specifying the action (verification), method (multi-source), and additional analyses. It distinguishes from the sibling 'verify_claim' by emphasizing depth and additional features. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other verification-related siblings like 'batch_verify'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions cost and service provider but doesn't indicate scenarios where deep verification is preferred over simpler verification ('verify_claim') or batch processing ('batch_verify'), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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