submit_identity_verification

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the action (notification and processing trigger) but does not disclose error states, idempotency, or what happens if called multiple times. Adequate for a simple notification but could be more transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the main purpose and usage condition. Every sentence adds value.

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 two required params, no output schema, and a simple notification action, the description covers the essential information. Could be improved with notes on error handling or idempotency, but it's largely complete for the tool's purpose.

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% with both parameters described in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states it notifies bunq that the Incode SDK flow is complete and triggers processing. The verb 'Notifies' and resource 'identity verification result' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like start_identity_verification (initiation) and get_identity_verification (status checks).

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?

Explicitly says to call after the SDK returns a successful completion callback, providing clear when-to-use guidance. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but the context implies that other sibling tools handle different phases, so it's adequate.

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