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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), it discloses the fee, payment assets, return value (verification_url), required external browser action with Didit, automatic notification, resulting kyc_verified status, and the $10,000 escrow unlock. This fully explains the consequences of calling the tool.

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 appropriately sized for a multi-step process. Each sentence serves a purpose: what it does, prerequisite steps, payment details, return behavior, outcome, and follow-up. Information is front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with a multi-step external identity verification flow, the description is complete: it covers prerequisites, method of payment, output, what the user needs to do, automatic notifications, and post-call verification. No critical gap that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds meaningful process context by clarifying that fee_hash is the tx hash of the $0.50 payment and that wallet_address is the XRPL address to verify, linking parameters to the workflow. This is a slight enhancement over the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Start a Didit identity verification session for a wallet operator' with the $0.50 fee context. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like check_wallet_kyc (status check) and get_fees (fee lookup), so an agent can differentiate without opening 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?

Provides explicit sequencing: 'Call get_fees() first to get the current fee amount and accepted assets', then pay and pass the tx hash. It also names the follow-up tool: 'Safe to call check_wallet_kyc() afterwards to confirm status.' This gives clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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