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

Annotations already signal idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the Didit source and return fields, but does not explain potential side effects even though readOnlyHint is false, nor does it mention staleness, errors, or external API calls. There is no explicit contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: the status check, the KYC implication, the false-branch instruction, and the return fields. It avoids unnecessary detail.

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 status check with an output schema, the description covers the return fields, the meaning of the result, the business consequence, and the exact next step if verification is missing. No important usage gap remains.

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 single parameter wallet_address is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage with a clear XRPL address format. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check identity verification status for a wallet operator.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling checks like check_wallet_sanctions by focusing on Didit KYC verification and the kyc_verified boolean.

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 explicitly instructs the agent on the follow-up action when kyc_verified is false: direct the operator to start_wallet_kyc(). It also provides context for when the result matters by explaining the escrow cap difference between verified and unverified wallets.

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