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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the result is advisory and not verified identity, fraud clearance, or authorization to release funds, and it notes a receipt-hash dependency. This helps an agent understand the limits of the output.

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 three tight sentences with no filler, and the advisory caveat is front-loaded after the core action. However, 'domain-age evidence' is vague and the receipt-hash requirement is stated without supporting context, slightly weakening precision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a complex 8-parameter composite guard, the description does not say how inputs combine, what 'mismatch signals' means, or how to choose this tool over dedicated sibling checks. The stated receipt-hash requirement is not represented in the input schema, creating ambiguity for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all eight optional parameters are documented in the input schema. The description groups them as 'supplied identifiers, domain-age evidence and mismatch signals' but adds no per-parameter meaning, format, or combination rules beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb 'Evaluate' and objects 'identifiers, domain-age evidence and mismatch signals', which gives a general sense of purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling checks such as lei_check, iban_check, vat_mod97_check, or sanctions_address_screen, nor does it clarify whether it aggregates them or replaces them.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many dedicated sibling verification tools or vendor_onboarding_pack. The phrase 'Requires a preceding receipt hash' is a prerequisite, but it does not establish context, exclusions, or alternatives for invocation.

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