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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it declares cost ('Free'), a hard safety guarantee ('never reveals a locked answer'), retry semantics (retry_after_seconds), a 24-hour failure window, and the unlocked/completed state. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the free/safe guarantees, then enumerates the four states compactly. The state list is long but each entry earns its place by specifying what follows in that state; minor verbosity only.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does so thoroughly for all four statuses including retry and pricing hints. Combined with its single required parameter being defined, it is largely complete, though auth/permission context is absent.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only types verify_id as a string, so the description must compensate. It does by defining the id's provenance ('the id returned by verify_claim'), which is exactly the semantics an agent needs to supply a valid value.

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 and resource ('Read the current state of a verification') and immediately differentiates scope ('Free, never reveals a locked answer') from sibling tools like unlock_verify. An agent can tell this read-only status check apart from verify_claim, unlock_verify, and verifi_info without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering condition ('Use it as a recovery path when no callback is set') and routes the agent onward per state, e.g. call unlock_verify when status is 'ready'. This is genuine when-to-use guidance tied to alternatives.

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