Статус подтверждения прав

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by clarifying what data is returned (state options, timing, failure info) and how verification_uin fits into the process. No contradictions.

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 dense sentence that lists all relevant return fields. It is comprehensive but slightly long; however, every element adds value and the main purpose is front-loaded. Could be improved with bullet points, but it's appropriately concise for the information conveyed.

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 the simple tool (1 optional parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values and state semantics. It also ties to the broader verification workflow (UIN placement before start_verification). The only minor gap is lack of explicit note about error responses beyond fail_info, but that is covered by the listed fields.

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% for the only parameter (host_id has a description explaining its format and the environment variable fallback). The tool description does not add anything about parameters, but it doesn't need to because the schema is already informative. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool returns the site rights verification status, listing exact fields (verification_state with enum values, verification_type, verification_uin, etc.). This specific resource (verification status) is distinct from sibling tools like get_site_summary or get_user_id. The reference to start_verification also links it to the verification workflow.

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 description implies when to use this tool: to check verification status and to obtain the UIN code to place on the site before running start_verification. It provides clear contextual guidance without explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the workflow hint (placing UIN before start_verification) is useful.

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