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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that calling again replaces the person (consistent with idempotentHint=true), that the response contains personVerificationUrl, and exactly what the signatory must do next (sign in, Veriff passport/licence photo and selfie, camera needed). It also states the name must match the ID and company documents, which is real operational context.

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 workflow position and the core action, then layers in operational detail. It is somewhat long with a few stacked clauses, but each sentence carries useful information with no padding.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the meaningful return value (personVerificationUrl) and its downstream flow. Combined with the input requirements and replacement semantics, an agent has everything needed 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 five parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that name, email and phone come from the user and that idCredPub originates from start_concordium_company_verification, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('sets the company's UBO or authorised signatory') and clarifies who that person is ('the person whose ID is checked'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_concordium_company_details and start_concordium_company_verification.

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?

Positions the tool in the workflow ('the regular route, step 3') and tells the agent to collect name, email and phone from the user, plus the idCredPub linkage to start_concordium_company_verification. It lacks explicit when-not/alternative guidance (e.g. when to use the non-regular route), so it falls short of a 5.

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