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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it is deterministic, returns evidence records with source paths, and provides a supported verdict. It does not describe the case when no evidence supports the claim, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

Two tightly written sentences; the first sentence states the core function and return shape, the second gives usage guidance. 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 one parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description explains what the tool returns, the scope of the claim, and when to use it. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, with only minor omissions around unsupported claims.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'claim' parameter. The description adds that the claim is 'about the owner', which is useful but does not materially expand the parameter semantics beyond the schema's example.

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 states a specific verb ('Ground'), a clear resource ('the portfolio's data'), and enumerates the exact sources involved (profile, projects, principles, etc.). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools by scoping claims to 'about the owner', making it distinct from verify_article, verify_package, and verify_repo.

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?

It explicitly provides when to use the tool: 'before asserting a fact about the owner, or to check what an answer was based on.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the portfolio-specific scope strongly implies when not to use it.

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