verify_silver_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 usefully discloses evaluation steps and thresholds (e.g., mass balance loss <= 2.0%, assay purity >= 99.99% Ag, ASM screening, LBMA audit), but omits operational traits such as read-only status, permissions, and return behavior.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists the evaluation checks compactly. It is dense but every clause contributes substantive domain criteria, with no obvious repetition or filler.

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 complex verification tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does not explain return values or outcomes. It covers evaluation criteria but leaves critical operational context, such as what the verification produces and how to interpret results, unspecified.

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 11 parameters thoroughly. The description maps evaluation concepts to some parameters (GIS geofencing, mass balance, purity, LBMA audit) but does not add parameter syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Verifies') and resource ('Mexican & Global Silver supply-chain provenance'), clearly identifying the tool's subject. It distinguishes the tool from non-silver origin verifiers by naming silver, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like verify_mineral_lot_compliance.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_mineral_lot_compliance or other origin-verification siblings. The purpose implies a use case, but no when/when-not conditions or alternative routing are provided.

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