Start Wallet KYC Verification

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description goes well beyond that: it discloses the $0.50 cost, accepted payment assets (XRP, RLUSD, USDC), the required out-of-band browser action via verification_url, automatic notification on completion, the resulting state transition to kyc_verified, and the $10,000 escrow unlock. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and fee, then prerequisites, then return value and effects. Every sentence carries operational weight, though the multi-paragraph form is heavier than strictly necessary for a two-parameter tool.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still names the key return artifact (verification_url) and the downstream consequences. Combined with the prerequisite chain and status-check follow-up, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal meaning by tying fee_hash to a concrete $0.50 payment in named assets and by framing wallet_address as the operator being verified, but it does not add syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Start a Didit identity verification session for a wallet operator' — and implicitly distinguishes itself from check_wallet_kyc, which it names as the status-confirmation sibling. An agent can tell exactly what this tool initiates without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Call get_fees() first to get the current fee amount and accepted assets') and an explicit follow-up alternative ('Safe to call check_wallet_kyc() afterwards to confirm status'). When-to-use, prerequisites, and the routing alternative are all present.

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