verify_customs_clearance

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuine non-obvious behavior: it cross-checks inland distance and nautical speed plausibility and emits a proof bundle rather than just a boolean. However it never states what happens when plausibility fails, whether the bundle is persisted/signed, what auth or account is required, or whether the B/L must already exist in the system — significant omissions for a 10-parameter verification pipeline.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and contains no filler. It is compact and well-ordered, though the stacked clause structure ('anchors... analyzes... and issues...') makes it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 tool with 10 parameters (9 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves key questions open: what the 'Proof Bundle' actually contains, what a failed verification looks like, and how the required inputs relate to one another. The one-sentence overview is not sufficient context for an agent to invoke this confidently.

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 only 60%, and the description supplies no parameter-level meaning at all. It does not explain the BOL vs CONTAINER tracking_type switch, how mineral_batch_id and mine_coordinates tie into the anchoring step, or why gross_weight_kg and both dates are required. With that much undocumented surface, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 three specific actions against a specific resource: anchoring an ocean B/L to mineral extraction, analyzing inland-distance/nautical-speed plausibility, and issuing a Customs Clearance Proof Bundle. That is far more informative than a tautology and clearly separates it from pure origin-verification siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling (e.g. verify_electronic_bill_of_lading or generate_zk_compliance_proof) to use instead, so it is not a 5.

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, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-tool guidance anywhere in the description. With 39 siblings including several B/L and compliance-proof tools, an agent gets no routing signal about which one applies. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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