verify_bkash_trx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but does not explain side effects, whether it performs a network call, what happens on invalid input, or the exact nature of 'settlement status' verification. The agent is left without explicit information about the operational behavior beyond the basic action.

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 a single, succinct sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes relevant detail (10-character) efficiently. No filler or repetitive language.

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 and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or what constitutes a successful verification. The agent may know what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral context to invoke it confidently and interpret results 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (trxId and expectedAmount) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds the context of '10-character' and 'BDT' but these are also hinted in the schema examples. It does not add significantly beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'verify' and the resource 'bKash transaction ID', plus an additional action 'check settlement status'. It is specific enough to distinguish this from unrelated sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It is not a tautology and conveys a definite purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternatives. The sibling tools are unrelated, so there is no context for when this tool should be chosen over others. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios that would make this the preferred choice.

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