verify_micro_deposits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'verify' without explaining whether this is a read or write operation, what side effects occur (e.g., confirming the account), or any required permissions. The verb 'verify' implies a validation check but no details.

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 extremely concise at 5 words, but this comes at the cost of necessary information. It is front-loaded but not sufficiently informative for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 required parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not described), the description is severely inadequate. The agent lacks critical context about inputs, behavior, and return values.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. The agent receives no explanation of what 'amounts', 'account_id', or 'customer_id' mean or how to format them, leaving the agent to guess.

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 clearly states the action (verify) and resource (micro-deposit amounts), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from related sibling tools like 'get_micro_deposit_details'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that verification typically follows 'initiate_micro_deposits' or precedes other steps, nor does it specify prerequisites.

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