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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a state-changing, repeatable, external-facing call. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the operation is an approval gate in a multi-step flow and it returns walletReturnUrl that must be handed to the user to open on their Concordium wallet device. No auth or failure-mode detail is given.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler. The route identity and the call precondition are front-loaded ahead of the return-value instruction.

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, and the description compensates by explaining what walletReturnUrl is and what the user should do with it. It covers preconditions for a multi-step, state-changing flow, though it omits failure cases such as an invalid or already-verified LEI.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented with their provenance from start_concordium_company_verification. The description reinforces that the LEI must be one of the user's active LEIs and user-selected, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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 (approves the Concordium company identity) and scopes it precisely as 'the fast route' using an LEI from start_concordium_company_verification. An agent can distinguish this from start_concordium_company_verification and set_concordium_company_details without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit precondition: only call after the user chose the fast route and confirmed which LEI the identity is for. It also names the sibling that supplies the LEI options. It does not name the alternative (slow) route tool, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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