verfi_verify_consent

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does establish that the call is a verification returning judgment fields rather than a mutation. However, it says nothing about permission/auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the optional hashes fail to match, which matters for a compliance check.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the outputs, then the use case. There is no filler and each sentence contributes new information.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description is right to enumerate the return values (consent status, TCPA compliance, interaction quality), and it documents all three parameters implicitly. It remains silent on failure/denied-verification behavior, which is the main residual gap.

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 the meaning of verfiID, email_hash, and phone_hash is already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that a Verfi ID is required and the hashes are optional ("Given a Verfi ID and optional PII hashes"), adding no binding rules or mismatch behavior beyond the 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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Verify consent validity for a lead") and enumerates the returned signals (consent given, TCPA compliance, interaction quality), which separates it from siblings like verfi_get_proof or verfi_search_session. The closing sentence explicitly frames it as "the primary tool for checking if a lead has valid consent."

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 a clear usage context — call this before contacting a lead — which tells the agent where in a workflow the tool belongs. It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it (e.g., versus verfi_get_proof), so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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