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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real behavioral context: typical approval latency (~2 minutes), the instruction not to speculate on 'unavailable', and the fact that wallets function independently of this status. That last point is a genuinely non-obvious side effect that prevents an agent from misreading the result.

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 status enumeration, which is the highest-value information, then adds timing and safety guidance. The sentence is dense with parentheticals but every clause carries meaning; minor tightening is possible.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description effectively documents the return values by enumerating all five statuses and their interpretations. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and full parameter coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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 100% and the single parameter (onboarding_token) is fully documented as 'The token returned by create_account'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Where the person is in bank verification') and enumerates the exact result states with plain-language meanings. An agent can distinguish this from create_account/get_wallets/get_funding_details purely from the description, since it is the only verification-status reader.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this after they open the verification link,' plus a handling rule for the unavailable state ('tell them to contact support, do not speculate why'). It does not name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated to verification, so there is little routing ambiguity to resolve.

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