create_verification

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

Annotations only declare write/non-destructive; the description adds substantial beyond-schema behavior: telegram_bot with a LIVE key completes immediately returning status: verified with a proof token and no challenge, whereas pk_test_ stays pending; no qr_text is ever returned; the credential requirement (PROOF_API_KEY, start_login does not unlock it); and that clients hide tool output from the user.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage, behavioral caveats, and the client-visibility note in a logical progression. It is dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information (deep_link routing, live-vs-test asymmetry, reply-text requirement), so little feels like padding.

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 9-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the response shape (challenge object, challenge.deep_link, status/proof token), the key branching behavior, auth prerequisites, and what the agent must relay to the user. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the per-parameter burden and baseline 3 applies. The description goes beyond it by showing worked type/channel/identifier combinations and the cross-parameter constraint that channel must match the asset type, which the schema only loosely hints at.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new identity verification') and describes the flow's scope (asset-based, channel-delivered). It routes to related tools (get_verification, wait_for_verification, render_auth_link) but does not differentiate itself from the many near-name siblings such as trigger_verification, create_verification_request, or create_multi_channel_verification.

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 'Agent usage' instructions with concrete type/channel/identifier examples and conditional behavior for LIVE vs pk_test_ keys, plus clear next-step guidance (poll get_verification / wait_for_verification for OTP, pass deep_link to render_auth_link for messengers). It stops short of naming when to prefer this over sibling creation endpoints like create_verification_request or trigger_verification.

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