get_kyc_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description discloses what information is returned, but it does not mention permissions, pagination, error behavior, or side effects.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted text. The return contents are front-loaded, followed by the key domain usage note about RFI requirements.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains the main returned information and the RFI satisfaction semantics. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about scope or historical versus current capabilities.

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 the single customerId parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that results are scoped to a customer, but it does not add syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists the verification capabilities a customer holds, with examples and returned fields (level, when). It is clearly a customer-scoped KYC read tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_available_entitlements.

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 second sentence gives a concrete usage context: checking whether a kyc_capability requirement on an RFI is satisfied. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the primary use case is clear enough for an agent.

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