verify_tungsten_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 the substantive checks performed (ASTM grade threshold, Dodd-Frank, NDAA Sec 848). However, it says nothing about whether this is read-only, what authority or data sources back the verification, or how a pass/fail outcome is surfaced.

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 with the verb first and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a verification tool, though the compressed comma-list of legal regimes makes it read more like a compliance label than a usage instruction.

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 8-parameter tool with 6 required inputs, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what the caller receives (certificate, boolean, score) and how failures are reported. It covers the criteria being checked but leaves the result contract and half the parameters undocumented.

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 50% (batch_id, tenement_id, source_country, apt_wo3_grade_pct documented; latitude, longitude, and both booleans not). The description adds semantic meaning for the two compliance toggles and restates the >=88.5% grade threshold, but offers no interpretation for the required coordinates.

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 resource and scope: tungsten (APT) provenance, ASTM B783 WO3 grade, Dodd-Frank status, and NDAA Sec 848 eligibility. The mineral name distinguishes it from the many sibling verify_*_origin tools. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it supersedes, but the identity is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as verify_mineral_lot_compliance or generate_zk_compliance_proof, which appear to overlap. The agent must infer the trigger condition from the tool name alone.

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