cross_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns verification confidence and conflict analysis, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly say whether it modifies any state, requires specific permissions, or has limitations (e.g., handling missing/invalid sources). The lack of explicit safety or side-effect information leaves the agent without a clear picture of consequences beyond the output.

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 two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and output. It is efficient, front-loaded, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and simple inputs, the description gives a high-level overview but lacks detail on the format or semantics of the returned 'verification confidence' and 'conflict analysis'. It also does not explain behavior when no sources are provided or how claims are processed. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate results or edge cases.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (topic, claims, sources). The tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema states—it merely mentions 'claims' and 'optional source URLs' which are already in the schema. Thus, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: cross-verifying a list of claims against optional source URLs. It uses a specific verb ('cross-verify') and states the resource (claims/sources) and the deliverables (verification confidence and conflict analysis). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_sources or start_research, which focus on gathering or managing research.

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 claims and optionally using source URLs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., needing sources first) or when not to use it, so the usage context is only implied rather than directly instructed.

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