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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds genuine domain context (the three tiers, that Basic is free and selfie-based, that ID costs A$3/yr), but never states that this is a read-only lookup, whether authentication is required, or what the caller's own verification state is scoped to.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leads with the resource, then adds tier detail in compact parentheticals. It is dense but every clause conveys real tier information and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the response contents (the three verification levels and their requirements). Given zero parameters and no annotations, the only remaining gap is auth/scope behavior, which is minor for a simple status lookup.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is reported at 100%.

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 names the resource (seeker verification level and steps) and enumerates the exact states it reports, so an agent knows what it will receive. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling 'get_verification', which is a real ambiguity for selection.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Shows what is missing to apply' suggests calling it before pursuing an application or upgrade. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no contrast with the similar get_verification tool.

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