verfi_search_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read-by-ID operation returning status, metadata, and PII verification results, which is useful, but says nothing about what happens on a hash mismatch, whether errors are returned or flagged, or any auth/PII-access requirements.

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?

Three tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded, optional behavior second, and return summary last. No filler.

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 simple 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains what comes back (status, metadata, PII verification results), which is the main gap it needed to fill. Missing only edge-case behavior on hash mismatch and access requirements.

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 already documents all three parameters including the SHA-256 hash semantics and the verfiID format. The description only adds that the hash parameters are optional, which is already conveyed by the required list; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Look up a consent session by Verfi ID') and states the secondary capability of hash verification, which separates it from list-oriented siblings like verfi_list_sessions. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Optionally verify email/phone hashes match' implies the verification use case, but the description never states when to prefer this over verfi_get_proof, verfi_verify_consent, or verfi_list_sessions, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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