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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world operation, and the description adds real context beyond that: the step-completion reporting, the transient nature of personVerificationUrl, and when walletReturnUrl appears. It stops short of stating auth requirements or polling cadence, but the safety profile is covered by 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?

A single front-loaded sentence beginning with 'Returns the status...' with each clause carrying distinct information (statuses, steps, due URLs, nextStep). It is dense and slightly run-on but has no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does so thoroughly: status enum, completed steps, personVerificationUrl while due, walletReturnUrl once submitted or approved, and nextStep. An agent has everything needed to interpret the response.

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 idCredPub parameter is documented in the schema itself, including its provenance from start_concordium_company_verification. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the 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 ('Returns the status of a Concordium company identity') and enumerates the exact status values, making it clearly distinct from siblings like check_registration_status and check_transfer_status.

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 parameter description ties it to start_concordium_company_verification and 'nextStep says what to do' hints at a polling workflow, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the other check_* siblings or how often to poll.

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