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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, idempotent=false, non-destructive write. The description adds real context beyond them: the verification starts in status New and is processed asynchronously, and the call returns a verification id plus status. It does not state permission/authorization requirements or what happens to already-linked DIDs, so it stops 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-loaded with the action and its flow position, then the gating condition and the return behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical flow chain and the doubled service_description guidance make it denser than needed.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (documents uploaded, no pending one-time document), the alternative path, the optional-field trigger, and the asynchronous outcome/status model. An agent has everything required to call it 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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the service_description_required condition. The description repeats the same conditional guidance without adding format, batch-limit, or cross-parameter constraints beyond the schema's 'same country and DID Group type' note. 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 ('Submit DIDs ... for verification against a regulation address') and pins its position in the DID registration flow. It also contrasts itself with the sibling create_regulation_upload_link, so the agent can distinguish the two without reading either 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('ONLY when all required identity and address proof documents are already uploaded') and an explicit when-not with the named alternative ('if such a document is required, use create_regulation_upload_link with the did_ids instead'). Prerequisite state is spelled out rather than implied.

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