verify_gstin

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

The description meaningfully discloses that every call queries the GST network in real time and is not served from a cache, which is valuable behavioral context. But with no annotations and no mention of error behavior, rate limits, or response format, the burden is only partially met.

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?

Two focused sentences front-load the core lookup purpose and returned data, then add the optional profile extension. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description enumerates the main output fields and the optional extended profile, which is sufficient for a simple lookup tool. Minor gaps remain around invalid GSTIN handling and operational constraints, but they are not critical for 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?

The schema already documents gstin with a concrete example, and the description compensates for the undocumented include_profile boolean by explaining exactly which additional fields it returns. This adds real semantic value 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Look up the live GST registration for a GSTIN' and enumerates the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gstin_returns or resolve_gstin_to_company, which differ in action and data scope.

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?

It provides clear context on what data is returned and how to opt into the extended profile with include_profile. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over its GSTIN-related siblings or state exclusions.

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