identity_verify_kyc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('Check', 'Returns'), includes cost ('Costs 0.2 HBAR'), and output content ('KYC grant status and verification history'). It doesn't cover error cases, rate limits, or authentication details beyond the api_key parameter.

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 with zero waste: purpose, output, cost. Front-loaded with core functionality. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value (operation, returns, cost).

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output content, and cost adequately. However, it lacks context on error handling, typical response structure, or how to interpret KYC status results, leaving gaps for agent invocation.

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 fully documents parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying token_id is optional for multi-token checks. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Check'), target resource ('KYC status of a Hedera account'), and scope ('for one or more tokens'). It distinguishes from siblings like identity_check_sanctions (different check type) and identity_resolve (different identity operation).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing KYC-enabled tokens), exclusions, or compare with siblings like identity_check_sanctions (sanctions vs KYC). The cost mention hints at usage but not decision criteria.

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