verify_copper_origin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does substantial work: it names the specific methods (GIS geofencing, stoichiometric mass balance, H2SO4 deficit screening, COCHILCO clearance) and their acceptance thresholds (<=2.0% loss discrepancy, <=5.0% variance, >=99.9935% Cu). It does not state side effects, idempotency, auth requirements, or whether the call mutates any state, which holds it below 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, with supporting criteria following. It is dense and jargon-heavy but every clause names a distinct verification gate, so little is wasted. Readability suffers slightly from being a single packed sentence rather than being broken into scannable items.

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 11-parameter compliance tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what is checked but says nothing about what the verification returns (pass/fail, per-criterion reasons, remediation). Because no output schema exists, the agent cannot learn the response shape elsewhere, leaving a meaningful 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by tying parameters to acceptance criteria: extraction_coordinates drive the GIS geofencing gate, feedstock/refined tonnage drives the 2% mass-balance check, sulfuric_acid_input_tons drives the 5% deficit screen, and purity maps to the ASTM B115 Grade 1 threshold. This is useful threshold context beyond the raw 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?

States a specific verb ('Verifies') and resource ('South American Copper-to-Cathode supply-chain provenance'), then enumerates the concrete checks performed. The copper-specific scope cleanly separates it from the parallel verify_cobalt_origin / verify_lithium_origin / verify_nickel_origin / verify_silver_origin siblings without needing to open 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 description implies the use case (auditing copper provenance and compliance) but never states when to use this versus verify_mineral_lot_compliance or the other verify_*_origin tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable from the purpose, which is the minimum viable level.

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