verify_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that validation is structural and not identity confirmation, preventing misuse. It also lists possible return values, adding behavioral context.

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 sentences plus a crucial note; no filler. The most important information (purpose and limitation) is front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, behavioral limitations, and return statuses. It omits error handling details but is sufficient for an agent to understand tool scope and use.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining what validations are performed (SSN rules, DL format, address presence). This goes beyond the schema's generic property descriptions.

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 it validates identity documents structurally, specifying checks on SSN format/range per SSA rules, driver's license format by state, and address presence. It returns specific statuses like VALID_FORMAT, distinguishing it from risk assessment and screening siblings.

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 notes it is structural validation only, not authoritative match, and that INVALID_FORMAT is a red flag. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, it sets expectations and distinguishes from authoritative verification.

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