verify_cobalt_origin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so by disclosing the concrete evaluation logic: concession geofencing, CEEC barcode seal validation, ASM co-mingling segregation, ILO 138/182 checks, RMI RMAP certification, and mass-balance tolerance (<=2.5% loss). It does not, however, disclose failure modes, permissions, or what the result conveys, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact enumeration of checks. It is jargon-dense and one long sentence, which slightly hurts readability, but essentially every clause corresponds to a distinct validation the agent should expect.

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 18-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is evaluated well but never indicates the return shape (pass/fail, findings, scores) or how a non-compliant lot is reported. Given there is no output schema, that outcome context is a real gap.

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 coverage is 89%, so the schema already documents the parameters (baseline 3). The description adds genuine semantic context by tying parameters to evaluation logic, e.g. geofencing maps to coordinates/concession, FEOC equity cap to feoc_equity_pct, and the ~23.5t:1t ratio to the ore/hydroxide mass-balance inputs.

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 names a precise verb and resource (verifies DRC Katanga heterogenite-to-cobalt hydroxide supply-chain provenance) and enumerates the exact domain checks performed. It is unmistakably distinct from the cobalt-adjacent siblings such as verify_lithium_origin, verify_nickel_origin, and verify_mineral_lot_compliance.

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?

Usage is implied by the tight domain scoping (DRC Katanga cobalt hydroxide), so an agent can infer it is the cobalt-specific verifier. However, it never states when to prefer this over verify_mineral_lot_compliance or the other verify_* siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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