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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: a signed receipt is produced, there is no daily rate limit, and payment is per call via x402. It does not detail payment failure modes or receipt format, but the key operational traits are disclosed.

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?

One tightly written sentence front-loads the relationship to the free verification, then adds the differentiating features and payment model. Every clause carries useful information.

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 one-parameter verification tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key distinctions, cost model, and return artifact at a high level. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying the receipt contents or output shape, but no critical invocation detail is missing.

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%, and the single parameter is already documented as the credential_id returned by kya_register. The description adds no further parameter meaning or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

States a specific paid verification operation and distinguishes it from the free sibling by naming its two differentiators: no daily limit and a signed receipt. An agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs from kya_verify without opening both schemas.

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?

Clearly positions the tool as the paid alternative to the free verification for cases needing no daily limit and a signed receipt. It gives a clear selection context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name kya_verify as the fallback.

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