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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the returned link is one-time, belongs to the calling wallet, and can be opened or handed to the wallet owner. It also describes the intended flow, which helps the agent understand side effects and prerequisites. It stops short of stating auth requirements or error behavior, but is still substantive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses bold to emphasize optionality. The flow explanation is useful and earns its place, though a small amount of repetition ('KYC is optional' / 'you can ignore the verification endpoints') could be trimmed. Overall it is well-organized and not bloated.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains what is returned (`kyc_url`), when to call it, and how it fits into the broader flow. It does not describe failure modes or what happens if KYC is already verified, but those are less critical given the explicit flow guidance.

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?

There is only one optional parameter (`auth_token`) and the schema already describes it as the Laso credential used when no Authorization header exists. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('KYC verification link'), and clearly distinguishes it from the related `get-kyc-status` sibling by explaining that it returns the link rather than the status. It also clarifies that KYC itself is optional, which prevents confusion about when this endpoint matters.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only needed for certain features like `/send-payment`, and should be called only after `get-kyc-status` shows `kyc_verified: false`. It even says to ignore the verification endpoints when not using those features, which is strong directional guidance.

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