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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only stwates the basic check action and notes a JSON return, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what error conditions exist, or any side effects. The duplicated sentence adds no behavioral insight.

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 short but contains an exact duplicate of the first sentence, wasting space. The parameter and return sections are clearly delineated, but the redundancy and lack of editing prevent a higher score.

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 which covers the return format, but the description does not explain when this check is needed, what 'verified successfully' means, or how it differs from `wallet_kyc_check_lite`. This lack of context could lead to incorrect tool selection among similar KYC tools.

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 schema provides only types and required flags with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining each parameter: `api_key` is the application key, `token` is the wallet_api_token from /access/login, and `wallet_fk` is also from /access/login. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Checks whether') and the resource ('wallet/customer has been verified successfully'), giving a specific purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling `wallet_kyc_check_lite` or other KYC-related tools, so it does not achieve a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `wallet_kyc_check_lite` or `wallet_kyc_session_create`. It only states what the tool does without any context for selection or exclusions.

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