verify_customer

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the multi-step flow and that it returns progress with next steps, but omits details on error handling, idempotency, or prerequisites like customer existence.

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 sentences with no filler. First sentence states the overall purpose, subsequent sentences detail the two-step flow. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 multi-step nature and existence of an output schema, the description provides the basic flow and expected outcome (progress with next steps). However, it lacks details on failure scenarios, required context (e.g., customer_id must be valid), and ordering constraints (must call step 1 before step 2).

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 0%, but the description explains the role of phone_number (step 1: send OTP) and otp_code (step 2: verify). It does not explain customer_id, but the purpose is implied as identifying the customer. Overall adds meaningful context for two of the three parameters.

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's a customer verification flow with two explicit steps: sending OTP and verifying with OTP, leading to face verification. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_customer or onboard_customer as a multi-step verification tool.

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 provides explicit instructions for each step: call with phone_number first, then with otp_code. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the step-by-step guidance is clear.

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