textverified_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: purchase, refund, renewal, and reply calls spend account credits or mutate account state. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, error semantics, or that the tool can execute arbitrary v2 endpoints indiscriminately.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the core capability and then the path convention and the credit/state warning. The 'complete escape hatch for all current and future v2 endpoints' line is slightly promotional filler but useful framing; nothing is bloated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a generic proxy with 0% schema coverage, however, the description omits method/body conventions and auth context, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent composing an arbitrary API call.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies the expected shape of path ('relative path from docs, such as /api/pub/v2/services') but leaves method, query, headers, and body entirely unexplained, including what method values are valid.

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: it calls any TextVerified API v2 endpoint via a raw path, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that wrap individual operations. It is clear this is the generic escape hatch rather than a task-specific action.

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?

Tells the caller to use the exact relative path from docs and supplies a concrete example (/api/pub/v2/services). It also flags when to be cautious (state-changing calls) and says to use only when explicitly intended, though it never explicitly says to prefer the specialized sibling tools when one exists.

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