verify_user

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

Annotations indicate the operation is not read-only, is idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It fails to explain what 'verify' entails, whether it can be undone, or any permissions required. The description merely restates the action without enriching beyond annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff, making it concise. However, it is under-specified, omitting critical details about usage, parameters, and effects. It balances brevity and completeness poorly, leaning too far toward brevity.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also lacks any information about the verification workflow, potential errors, or how it relates to sibling verification tools. For a tool that modifies user state, this description is too sparse for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 schema provides a minimal description for user_id ('User ID') but no description for custom_description. The tool description does not explain the meaning or purpose of either parameter, leaving half the parameters poorly defined. With only 50% schema coverage and no guidance in the description, parameter understanding is insufficient.

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 the resource ('a user'), with the qualifier 'on behalf of the bot's organization' adding necessary context. It differentiates from sibling tools like verify_chat and remove_user_verification by targeting users specifically.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_chat or remove_user_verification. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or usage context beyond the vague 'on behalf of the bot's organization.'

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