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

Annotations only indicate it's not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive. The description adds crucial behavioral context: it's the only step an agent cannot complete itself, it returns kycRequired and kycUrl when verification is pending, and advises to retry after the human finishes. This goes well beyond annotations and is essential for the agent to handle correctly.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose and key prerequisite. The only blemish is the trailing 'Free.' sentence, which appears to be a stray or unrelated note and adds no value. This prevents a perfect score.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the purpose, the prerequisite, the failure mode (kycRequired), and the required human interaction. Nothing essential is missing. The output schema handles return values, so no further detail is needed.

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?

With zero parameters, the description has no parameter details to add. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description appropriately focuses on preconditions and behavior instead of parameter semantics.

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 creates the banking profile and explains its role as the foundation for all other banking calls. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_banking_account (accounts vs. profile) and get_banking_profile_status (status vs. creation). The verb-resource pairing is specific and 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 implies when to use it: before other banking calls, and it explicitly states the prerequisite (identity verification) and the action to take if verification is missing (hand the kycUrl to the human). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, such as checking if the profile already exists via get_banking_profile_status. This is a minor gap given the clear prerequisite and positioning.

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