claim_check

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the call returns both supporting (hits) and contradicting (anti_hits) evidence plus a freshness verdict, and that this is combined into one call. It does not discuss failure modes or edge cases, but the output schema covers the return shape and the operation is simple.

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?

One sentence packs the action, the example, the result summary, and the one-call characteristic with no filler. The key behavior is front-loaded before the 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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with full schema descriptions, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient: it tells the agent what claim checking means and what to expect. Nothing critical for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond labeling the primary input as a claim, and the schema already gives an example for cue. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('claim ... against memory'), and the expected result ('hits + anti_hits + a freshness verdict in one call') makes it distinguishable from raw memory search/recall siblings. It goes beyond the tool name to define what a claim check actually produces.

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 purpose statement implies when to use this tool: when an agent has a claim to verify and wants evidence plus a freshness assessment in a single call. However, it does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., memory_search, memory_recall) or state when to prefer those instead, so the routing guidance is only implicit.

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