What else can QorpIQ verify (paid API)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of behavioral context the annotations do not: the requirement of an API key, signalling this is a gated/commercial surface rather than a free lookup.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the inventory, then a single sentence of usage guidance; no filler. The ten-item enumeration is slightly list-heavy but each item is a distinct check the agent may need to recognize on behalf of the user.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema catalog tool, the description supplies the complete set of returnable items and the condition for calling it, which is enough to call it correctly. What is missing is only minor: no indication of format or whether results are static.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The enumerated check names also help the agent map user intent onto this no-arg catalog call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the paid KYB checks') and enumerates exactly what the catalog contains, so the agent knows the return scope without opening a schema. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling lookup/mca/search tools by framing these as checks 'this free server does not return.'

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?

'Use when the user needs something this free server does not return' gives a clear triggering condition that routes the agent away from the free lookup siblings. It stops short of naming the specific alternative tools (e.g. lookup_company, mca_status), so the routing is by category rather than by explicit tool name.

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