Verify Name

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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the required Personal-App scope grant, the 403 Forbidden failure mode, possible per-call bank charges, and mandatory user confirmation that cannot be bypassed. These are exactly the operational risks an agent needs before invoking a verification call.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scoping rule, followed by auth, cost, confirmation, and return details. It is efficient overall, though the explicit return-shape explanation is somewhat redundant given that an output schema exists.

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 verification tool with real-world cost and auth requirements, the description covers what it does, how scoping works, permission requirements, failure behavior, confirmation requirements, and return structure. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly or recognize when it cannot.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including account_id's optional scoping behavior. The description reinforces how account_id changes the endpoint used, but does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: verify a name against the account holder via Akahu's identity check. This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which handle accounts, transactions, or the user's own identity profile rather than name verification.

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?

Explains the key scoping decision: if account_id is provided, the check is limited to that account; otherwise Akahu checks every connected identity source. It also notes the required portal scope grant. It stops short of explicitly comparing against sibling tools such as id_get_me, but there is no direct alternative for name verification.

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