verify_social_activation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only check or a write operation, what permissions are needed, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a verification tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and parameters, second provides crucial usage context. Every word earns its place, and information is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral details. It explains the 'why' but not the 'what happens' - agents won't know what verification success/failure looks like or what the trust badge enables.

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 the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work, though the description could have explained why both parameters are required together.

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 the action ('verify') and resource ('social media post containing your activation code'), with specific purpose for obtaining 'a verified trust badge'. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'verify_agent_domain' or 'verify_payment_activation', but the social media focus provides implicit differentiation.

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?

Provides clear context about when to use ('for a verified trust badge') and when not to use ('Not required for API access — agents are auto-activated on registration'), giving agents explicit exclusion criteria. However, it doesn't mention alternatives like 'get_activation_status' or compare with other verification tools.

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