Check ECCTA identity-verification compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool returns counts and unverified_persons details, clarifies the critical distinction between 'pending' and 'overdue', and mentions the 24-hour caching and Pro plan requirement. This is thorough behavioral disclosure beyond just naming the operation.

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 purpose and then adds necessary context, return shape, important caveats, and operational details. Each sentence earns its place; the legal context is not filler because it explains the relevance of 'overdue' and enforcement. Despite length, it remains focused and structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoughtfully explains exactly what will be returned and how to interpret ambiguous terminology. It covers plan requirements, caching, and deadline implications. The single-parameter tool is simple, and the description leaves little an agent needs to infer.

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 100% coverage of the single parameter, including format, example, and zero-padding guidance. The description adds nothing new about company_number beyond implying it identifies the company. Baseline 3 is appropriate because structured schema already documents the parameter well.

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?

Description clearly identifies the resource (a UK company's ECCTA identity-verification status) and the specific action (check). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on compliance/verification state rather than raw company or officer data. The return fields are named, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: whenever a director or PSC's ECCTA identity-verification status is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the compliance-specific language makes the intended use obvious. The Pro plan requirement is also stated.

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