verify_social_activation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context that the tool is optional and auto-activation occurs, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on success, or any potential side effects. The verb 'Verify' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the 'Optional' context, and every clause adds value. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly 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?

The tool is simple with 2 documented parameters, and the description clarifies its purpose and optionality. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what a successful verification returns or what the 'verified trust badge' entails, leaving a modest gap for agents to understand the post-call outcome.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of the inputs, so the description need not add parameter details. It mentions 'activation code' and 'social media post,' which aligns with the schema but does not add new format or syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Verify' with the resource 'social media post containing your activation code' and states the purpose 'for a verified trust badge.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling verification tools by focusing on social media posts rather than domain or payment verification.

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 explicitly labels the tool as 'Optional' and states 'Not required for API access — agents are auto-activated on registration,' providing a clear when-not scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other verification types (e.g., verify_agent_domain), so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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