IvedaAI: IdentityRecognition

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the response JSON structure: 'status' is the HTTP status code and 'truncated'/'timedOut' flags indicate a cut-off response. This is useful for understanding potential response behavior. Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, so the bar is lower.

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 well-structured with a top-level response note followed by an organized list of endpoints and their parameters. It is somewhat lengthy due to the parameter lists, but each part serves a purpose and the essential response information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers inputs thoroughly but only partially covers outputs. Without an output schema, the description should explain return structures; it only mentions status, truncated, and timedOut flags. For a history endpoint with many possible fields, this is incomplete.

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 input schema only provides generic parameters (body, file, path, query, operation) with no endpoint-specific details. The description compensates fully by enumerating every query parameter for each endpoint, including types, formats (e.g., 'yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss'), and required indicators (asterisks). This is essential information not derivable from 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 clearly identifies the tool as handling IdentityRecognition operations, listing three specific GET endpoints (history, config, latest) that define its scope. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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?

The endpoints themselves imply usage contexts (e.g., 'history' for past records, 'latest' for the most recent), but the description offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than prescribed.

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