verify_nickel_origin

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 meaningful behavioral context: the evaluated jurisdictions (IMIP Morowali, IWIP Weda Bay), the regulatory thresholds applied (25% FEOC cap, 2.5% mass-balance loss), and CBAM screening. However, it never states whether the operation is read-only, what a pass/fail result looks like, or how non-compliant inputs are handled.

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 densely packed sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the five evaluation axes in parallel structure. Every clause corresponds to a distinct check, though the heavy jargon density makes it less scannable than a bulleted breakdown would 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 13-parameter compliance tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the evaluation scope well but omits the return shape and outcome semantics, which the agent must infer entirely. Adequate but with a clear gap given zero structured support.

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 92%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real interpretive value beyond the schema by defining the ~31t Limonite to 1t MHP stoichiometric ratio and the 2.5% loss tolerance that govern limonite_ore_input_tons/mhp_output_tons, and the FEOC 25% equity ceiling that governs feoc_equity_pct.

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 a precisely scoped resource (Indonesian laterite Limonite-to-Nickel MHP supply-chain provenance), then enumerates the exact checks performed. This clearly separates it from siblings like verify_lithium_origin, verify_cobalt_origin, and verify_composite_battery_passport without needing to name them.

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 only implied: the nickel/MHP specificity tells an agent to pick this over the lithium or cobalt verifiers. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that a SIMBARA NTPN and HPAL refinery must be known first), and no when-not guidance.

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