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

The description transparently covers asynchronous generation, idempotent re-request behavior, retry of failed exports, and plan/allowance implications. It does not describe error cases for invalid verification IDs, but the disclosed behavior is otherwise thorough.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured, covering purpose, constraints, async flow, and idempotency without unnecessary filler. Each clause adds meaningful 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?

The description provides enough context for an agent to choose and call the tool, including the polling flow and download location. It does not detail the output schema fields, but the reference to get_psd_export_status and the existence of an output schema reduce the need for that detail here.

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?

The single parameter verification_id is fully described in the schema and enriched by the description, which explains that it must reference a completed RAW+JPEG verification and how it is returned (verify_photo, verify_content_credentials, or list_verifications).

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: requesting a layered flicker-comparison PSD for a completed RAW+JPEG verification the user owns. It also names the specific layers and distinguishes the tool from the related get_psd_export_status 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?

It explicitly explains when to use the tool, including prerequisites (completed RAW+JPEG verification you own), plan restrictions (Professional plan only), and the asynchronous workflow with the polling step via get_psd_export_status. This leaves little ambiguity about usage.

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