verify

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the exact response fields (`verified`, `expected`, `actual_value`, `delta_pct`), the meaning of `verified: null` ('not checked', NOT 'correct'), and the rounding/delay behavior of anonymous access. This goes far beyond a simple action statement.

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 compact yet comprehensive. It front-loads the core action, then logically covers parameter behavior, response fields, and important caveats. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool's inherent complexity (subtle null meaning, anonymous data rounding/delay, multiple response fields) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a complete picture. It even includes an example value format and explains the delta percentage. No critical behavioral aspect is left unexplained.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: it explains the optional `value`'s purpose ('a number you are about to cite'), the consequence of omitting it, and the resulting `verified` null behavior. This enhances the schema's minimal 'Optional. The number you want checked.'

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check a FLOPS index value against the published index.' It clearly distinguishes the verification use case from a plain lookup, and its mention of omitting `value` to do a lookup differentiates it from sibling tools like get_index. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear conditional guidance: use `value` when about to cite a number, omit it for a plain lookup. It explains the anonymous public-value caveat. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., 'use get_index for lookup'), but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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