verify

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

The description discloses the return format and key behaviors (e.g., passed only true when no failures, mode field), but does not mention side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden and does so well.

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 and well-structured: a brief opening sentence states the purpose, followed by an 'Args' section and a 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds value, and the important information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (two string parameters), the description fully covers all necessary information: purpose, parameter semantics, and return value format. No additional context is needed.

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?

The input schema only provides names and types for the two string parameters. The description compensates fully by explaining that 'source' is the trusted reference text and 'draft' is the text to verify, adding critical semantic meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resources 'DRAFT text' and 'SOURCE', and specifies the outcome of reporting unsupported factual claims. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 context for when to use the tool (when a draft needs fact-checking against a source), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, this is adequate.

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