verify_niobium_scandium_origin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the substantive scope of checks performed (provenance, assay standards, defense eligibility, loan pre-qualification), which is real context, but says nothing about side effects, auth requirements, whether results are persisted, or output shape for a 10-parameter compliance tool.

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 front-loaded sentence beginning with the verb and resource, and every clause corresponds to actual checked functionality rather than filler. Dense but not wasteful; only mildly hard to parse due to stacked acronyms.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is verified but omits behavioral, output, and required-parameter guidance. Purpose is adequately conveyed; an agent calling it correctly would benefit from more.

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 50%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented half. It usefully maps to fe_nb_grade_pct, sc2o3_purity_pct, ndaa_defense_procurement_eligible, and doe_exim_loan_eligible by naming the FeNb 65%, Sc2O3 99.5%, NDAA Sec 848, and EXIM criteria, but adds nothing for latitude/longitude, batch_id, tenement_id, or source_country beyond the terse schema hints.

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) plus the exact resources (Ferroniobium FeNb 65%, Scandium Oxide Sc2O3 99.5%) and the standards it checks against (ASTM A550, NDAA Sec 848, DOE Title XVII/EXIM). This cleanly distinguishes it from the many sibling verify_*_origin tools by commodity, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 agent can infer this is the tool for niobium/scandium origin and compliance checks from the enumerated verification targets. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-when-not guidance, no prerequisite conditions, and no routing to alternative siblings such as verify_mineral_lot_compliance.

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