Gridzen Verification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful privacy constraint ('Never provide personal data') and names the scenario outcomes, which is legitimate added context, though the return values are largely restated by the existing output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and immediately followed by the hard constraint. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety, so the main remaining gaps are the meaning of 'country'/'capability' and the relationship to sibling tools. For a 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage this is adequate but leaves real ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does effectively enumerate the accepted 'scenario' values (match/mismatch/not_found/timeout/unsupported), which compensates for that one parameter, but it says nothing about what 'country' or 'capability' mean, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 action (return) and object (synthetic fixture) and enumerates the scenario types produced, so the agent knows this generates test fixtures. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_sandbox_verification, which is its read counterpart, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the word 'create'.

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 scenario names (match/mismatch/not_found/timeout/unsupported) imply this is for sandbox/testing purposes, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_sandbox_verification, plan_verification, or explain_result. Usage context is inferable but not stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: missing data and timeout reason codes are not conclusive verdicts. It says nothing about latency, cost, or lookup failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action is stated first and the caveat second. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the detail the low schema coverage demands.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is low complexity with one required parameter. However, with 0% schema coverage the description should at minimum identify the source of reason codes and note what happens when a code is unknown, which it omits.

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 0% and the single reason_code parameter has no title detail, so the description must carry the meaning. It only gestures at 'a sandbox reason code' without saying where the code comes from, whether it is free-form or an enum, or how to obtain one, leaving the parameter effectively underspecified.

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 pairs a specific verb (explain) with a specific resource (a sandbox reason code), which is enough to tell it apart from the verification-planning siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling produces the codes it consumes, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus plan_verification, get_coverage, or the sandbox verification tools. The only usage-adjacent content is the note that missing data and timeout are inconclusive, which is an output caveat rather than a routing rule.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds a genuinely useful disclosure beyond them — 'not live coverage' — warning the agent that results are static research rather than current operational data, which changes how results should be framed to a user.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence split by a semicolon: operation modes first, caveat last. Nothing is redundant, though the telegraphic 'List country research' phrasing costs some readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is the input side: for a two-parameter read tool with zero schema coverage, the description should define what 'capability' accepts and what the list mode actually enumerates.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It contributes real value for 'country' by pinning the format to ISO-2, but 'capability' is only alluded to via 'capability/access evidence' with no accepted values, format, or interaction rules with 'country' — half the parameters remain under-specified.

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 names two operations (list country research, inspect one country's capability/access evidence) with a specific identifier format (ISO-2), so the verb+resource relationship is discernible. However, 'country research' and 'capability/access evidence' are fuzzy resource names — an agent cannot tell exactly what domain payload is returned — and there is no differentiation from the unrelated verification siblings.

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 two modes are implied by the optional parameters: omit country to list, supply an ISO-2 code to inspect. That is useful routing guidance, but it is never stated explicitly, no condition favors one mode over the other, and no alternative or prerequisite is named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the result is a deterministic sim_v1 fixture and explicitly not a real transaction. It does not disclose error behavior or auth needs, but for a simple read-only sandbox tool this is a useful supplement.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and the key sandbox caveat are both delivered immediately.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values or side effects. Still, it leaves gaps around when to use this retrieval versus create_sandbox_verification and what the required identifier represents.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'identifier' parameter. It only indirectly implies that the identifier selects which deterministic fixture to retrieve, without specifying format, meaning, or expected values.

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 ('Retrieve') and object ('deterministic sim_v1 fixture'), and clarifies that it is not a real transaction. However, 'sim_v1 fixture' is jargon and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling create_sandbox_verification or explain what a 'sandbox verification' retrieval actually returns.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create_sandbox_verification, explain_result, get_coverage, or plan_verification. The phrase 'not a real transaction' gives some implicit sandbox context, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine mode-dependent behavior (production stage reports missing live routes) and a backward-compatibility guarantee for legacy event-only calls, but it never says what a plan actually returns or requires to run.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Some phrases ('report missing live routes') are jargon-heavy and could be sharper, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and a required country field, the absence of any explanation for 'event' and 'country' leaves a real gap an agent cannot fill elsewhere.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It supplies the valid task values and the meaning of stage=production, which the schema lacks, but it says nothing about 'event' (defaulting to payout) or the required 'country' parameter, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Plan') and resource (verification) and enumerates the task kinds it handles (signup_phone, identity_onboarding, payout_account), which is more specificity than the schema offers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like create_sandbox_verification, but the plan-vs-create distinction is inferable.

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?

One conditional is given: 'Set stage=production to report missing live routes,' plus a note that legacy event-only calls still work. There is no guidance on when to choose this over create_sandbox_verification or get_coverage, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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