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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the expected timing for approval and the important caveat that wallets already work regardless of the status. This helps the agent interpret results correctly without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each providing distinct value: what the tool reports, when to call it, and an important interpretation caveat. No fluff or redundancy.

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 read-only status tool with one fully documented parameter and a small, clearly defined status set, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to expect and how to interpret the result, and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'The token returned by create_account.' The description does not repeat or expand on parameter semantics, but with 100% schema coverage, the schema carries the load. 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (the person's bank verification status) and enumerates the possible values: awaiting_verification, in_review, approved, or declined. This is more specific than the generic tool name and clearly distinct from the sibling tools like create_account or get_wallets.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: call after the verification link is opened, with approval typically taking about two minutes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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