Generate EU ID card verification code (V2 feature)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds that this generates 'complete code examples' and mentions 'FastMCP context for logging' (though 'ctx' parameter isn't in the schema), providing some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether generated code is production-ready, includes dependencies, or has security considerations.

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 reasonably concise with clear sections (purpose, args, returns). However, the 'Args' section includes a parameter ('ctx') not in the schema, wasting space. The first sentence could be more front-loaded with key information. The structure is functional but could be more efficient.

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 has annotations (readOnlyHint), output schema exists (implied by 'Returns' statement), and parameters are mostly enumerated, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool generates and the basic parameter meanings. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema details provided, it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gaps, particularly around the 'ctx' parameter discrepancy.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden for parameter documentation. It lists 'component', 'language', and 'ctx' parameters with some semantic explanation (e.g., 'Which part to generate', 'Programming language'). However, it doesn't fully explain the meaning of 'frontend' vs 'backend' vs 'smart-contract' components or why 'solidity' is only for 'smart-contract'. The 'ctx' parameter is mentioned but not in the schema, creating confusion.

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 tool's purpose: 'Generate code for EU ID card verification' with specific resource (EU ID card verification code) and verb (generate). It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_verification_code' by specifying 'EU ID card' scope and 'V2 feature' context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'generate_verification_config' which might be related.

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. With siblings like 'generate_verification_code' and 'generate_verification_config', there's no indication of when this specific EU ID card verification code generator is appropriate versus other verification tools. The 'V2 feature' mention provides some context but no explicit usage boundaries.

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