verify_aadhaar_offline_artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real substance: XXE and expansion-bomb hardening via defusedxml, RSA signature checking against a bundled trust anchor, and DPDP-driven output minimization. What it does not state is the failure behavior (e.g. what a bad signature or missing share code yields), which is presumably in the output schema.

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 purpose leads, and each following sentence adds a distinct concern (security hardening, signature trust, privacy/compliance) without repetition. Jargon density is high but appropriate for the domain; nothing is 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 two-parameter verifier with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what is being verified, how authenticity is established, and what is and isn't returned. The remaining gap — outcome semantics on verification failure — is reasonably delegated to the output schema.

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% and both parameters are self-documenting, so the description is not required to carry parameter meaning. It adds no syntax detail for the base64 payload or the share code beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: verify a UIDAI Paperless Offline e-KYC XML/ZIP artifact with A3 authenticity. That scoping cleanly separates it from the sibling validators that check Aadhaar number format (validate_aadhaar, bulk_validate_aadhaar) and from decode_digilocker_uri.

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 implied by the artifact-type scoping — an agent can infer this is for paperless offline e-KYC XML/ZIP files rather than plain numbers — but the description names no alternative and states no explicit when-not condition. A sentence routing callers away from validate_aadhaar / validate_aa_consent_artifact would lift this.

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