iys_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly states no side effects and no credit consumption, indicating safety. However, it does not disclose response format, error handling, or rate limits, which are relevant for a query tool.

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?

Three sentences front-loaded with purpose, use cases, and safety. No redundant information. Reference link is appended but does not detract. Efficient and clear.

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 simple query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, usage, safety. It fairly enables an AI agent to decide when to use this tool, though details like response format or error states are missing but not critical.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (brandCode, recipient, recipientType, type). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies per guidelines.

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 tool returns consent status for a given recipient, using specific verb 'returns' and resource 'İYS consent status'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like iys_register by providing distinct use cases: verify processing, check consent before sending, audit reports.

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 lists three usage scenarios: verifying registration processing, checking consent before commercial send, and audit reports. States 'no side effects and consumes no credits' to guide safe use. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but provides sufficient context.

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