gmb_verify_locations_verifications_complete

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the state transition from PENDING to VERIFIED and clarifies AUTO behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose error conditions, required permissions, or side effects beyond the state change, leaving some 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 that front-load the action and use clear code formatting. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description adequately explains the core purpose and the specific scenario where this tool applies. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the rich schema, it doesn't need to describe return values. The AUTO vs non-AUTO distinction adds necessary context, though it could mention prerequisites like having an existing pending verification.

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%, and the `pin` field is already described as 'Required. PIN code received by the merchant to complete the verification.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Completes') and the resource ('a PENDING verification'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it's only necessary for non-AUTO verification methods, which differentiates it from the broader verify tool.

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?

It gives an explicit condition for when to use the tool (non-AUTO verification methods) and when not to (AUTO methods are instantly VERIFIED). This provides clear usability context, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool for initiating verification, leaving some implicit workflow.

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