verify_composite_battery_passport

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose substantial behavior: it writes a Master Passport on Polygon (an on-chain write with implicit irreversibility), enforces 'zero FEOC taint', and cryptographically binds proofs into a Merkle Root EIP-712 signature. It omits auth/permission needs, cost, and failure modes, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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 and outcome are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the compliance regimes it enforces. It is a dense single run-on sentence heavy with stacked jargon and semicolons, but every clause carries a distinct regulatory/technical fact, so little is wasted.

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 high-complexity, multi-nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the domain well: it names the regimes (IRA 30D, EU Battery Regulation 2023/1542, CSDDD), the outputs (Master Passport, Merkle Root EIP-712 signature), and the streams. It stops short of describing the return payload structure or error conditions, which an output-less tool could have benefited from.

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 already documents all six parameters (including the nested origin-verify payloads and defaults); baseline is 3. The description only loosely maps to the three mineral lot parameters via 'Orchestrates Australian Lithium, Indonesian Nickel, and DRC Cobalt streams' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the 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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('Evaluates end-to-end composite EV battery pack compliance and issues a Master Passport on Polygon') and the keyword 'composite'/'end-to-end' clearly distinguishes it from the single-mineral siblings (verify_lithium_origin, verify_nickel_origin, verify_cobalt_origin). An agent can tell this is the aggregating multi-stream tool without opening any schema.

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 text describes capabilities but never states when to choose this tool over verify_mineral_lot_compliance or the per-mineral verify tools, nor any prerequisite ordering (e.g. lots must be verified first). No exclusions or conditions are given, so the agent must infer routing from the word 'composite' alone.

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