generate_zk_compliance_proof

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does add real behavioral context: it discloses the zero-knowledge shielding of secret inputs and the exact claims being proven. It stops short of auth requirements, failure behavior, output format, or whether the proof is persisted, so it is only partially complete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leading with the verb, with no filler. It is dense rather than bloated, though the compressed phrasing packs multiple facts together.

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 an 8-required-parameter cryptographic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the caller guessing on input formatting, required permissions, and what a proof result looks like. It orients the agent but does not equip it to call the tool correctly.

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?

Eight parameters with 0% schema coverage means the description must do all the work. It loosely maps to four of them (mine coordinates, unit cost, China ratio) but is silent on batch_id, mineral_type, secret_supplier_id, public_carbon_intensity_kg_co2, and never explains the secret_/public_ naming convention that governs the whole schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Generates a zero-knowledge compliance proof') and even enumerates what it shields (extraction coordinates, unit production costs) and proves (concession validity, China content < 0.1%). It is clearly distinguishable in substance from the many verify_* siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing versus alternatives such as verify_mineral_lot_compliance or get_compliance_status. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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