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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the whole downstream flow: the person must complete a live face check and pay on fastcac.com, the exact prices (₦1,000 slip, ₦500 NIN, ₦1,200 bundled), that results go only to the person, and that starting is free and charges nothing. This resolves the key ambiguity created by readOnlyHint=false paired with 'charges nothing'.

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 destination, then scoped per enum value, then the return values. The single long sentence with nested semicolons and parentheticals is dense, but each clause (costs, who pays, free to start) carries real decision-relevant information.

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 little explanation, and the description still names the person-facing link and the agent-facing request_handle. For a one-parameter tool it covers flow, costs and outcome routing well; only the handoff to get_nin_request_status and any expiry/duplicate-request behavior are 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 100%, so the enum descriptions already define both values. The prose largely restates them, adding only the small detail that the phone lookup uses the number registered with NIMC, which the schema already hints at. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Uses a concrete verb and resource ('Start a paid request on fastcac.com') and precisely enumerates the two enum modes: 'slip' produces a PDF/print-ready NIN slip from a known NIN, 'phone' finds the NIN via the NIMC-registered phone number. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_nin_request_status, which is the natural follow-up tool.

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 clear selection criteria between the two kinds, plus an explicit exclusion: for 'phone' the person can only add the slip on fastcac.com, and 'you can't request it here'. It stops short of naming get_nin_request_status as the tool for tracking an already-started request.

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