Verify a Shield session

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the auth requirement (site secret key from FINDIP_SHIELD_SECRET_KEY) and two non-obvious edge cases: unknown sessions return verified: false, and missing IP intelligence yields risk_status "unknown", explicitly flagged as not equivalent to safe. These are exactly the failure modes an agent would otherwise misread.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the operation and its outputs come first, edge cases and the auth requirement follow. Every sentence contributes, though the paragraph is long with no visual separation between capability, edge cases, and prerequisites.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return values and does so concretely, plus the two deceptive-return cases and the credential requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds little parameter-level detail beyond implying the session_id targets a single session and that event is contextual. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Server-side risk check for one FindIP Shield session') and then enumerates exactly what the check yields: risk score, recommendation, challenge status, and the session picture. The 'one session' scoping implicitly separates it from aggregate siblings like recent_risky_events and IP-only siblings like lookup_ip.

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 frames the use case — 'the same check a backend runs before acting on a signup, login or checkout' — which tells an agent precisely when this tool belongs in a flow. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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