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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the wallet-originated precondition and the fact that the response enumerates two selectable routes ('fast' vs 'regular') with their eligibility criteria. It does not mention auth requirements or failure modes.

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 action, then the prerequisite, then the parameter instruction and the return shape. It is longer than most definitions but nearly every sentence carries operational information; a little compression of the route descriptions is possible.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description compensates by describing the two returned routes and the user-choice requirement. What remains unstated is authorization needs and what happens on repeat invocation, though idempotentHint covers part of that.

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 schema already gives the link format and example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining where the value comes from ('Ask the user for that whole link') and that either the full URL or just the IdCredPub is acceptable.

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 ('Starts verifying a company for a Concordium company identity') and situates it in the wallet-initiated flow, which separates it from status-check siblings like check_concordium_verification_status and from set_concordium_company_details.

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 a clear precondition ('The request always starts in the wallet') and an explicit instruction to ask the user for the whole link and pass it here, plus the rule to always let the user choose the route. It does not name sibling alternatives or say when not to call it, so it stops 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.