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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explicitly mentions quota accounting, the keyless anonymous tier with rate limits, and the fact that anonymous verifications can't be listed or shared until registration, plus the asynchronous return pattern. These are meaningful behavioral traits.

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 about four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then covering all essential usage details. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two upload modes, async result, quota tiers), the description covers the critical workflow steps and limitations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the description remains sufficiently complete.

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 description explains the semantics of the primary parameters (raw_base64, image_base64, raw_object_key, image_object_key, anonymous_user_id) by mapping them to two input modes. However, it omits raw_filename and image_filename entirely, and does not specify size limits or format constraints, leaving gaps given the 0% schema coverage.

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 function: verifying photo authenticity from a RAW file and its JPEG export. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_verification_upload and get_verification by describing the full verification workflow, making it unambiguous.

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 description explains when to use inline base64 vs uploading via create_verification_upload, and instructs to poll get_verification. It also contrasts keyed and anonymous usage patterns, giving clear context for choosing the appropriate path, though it doesn't explicitly compare against all sibling tools.

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