verify_capture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description only states the tool's purpose; it does not say whether the tool compares expectedClickId with captured values, what it returns, whether it throws errors, or whether it has side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for an unannotated tool.

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 unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the consent-related context without padding or repetition.

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 four parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to be a complete guide for correct invocation. It does not explain the verification semantics, the expected shape of captured, the role of the key enum, or what outcome an agent should expect.

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 must compensate for missing parameter documentation. Although the parameter names such as expectedClickId and captured are self-explanatory, the description does not explain how these parameters relate to each other, what type captured should be, or how consent and key factor into the verification logic.

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 states a specific verb and resource: verifying that a click ID was captured intact after consent. It clearly differentiates this from sibling verification tools like verify_conversion_delivery and verify_crm_attachment by focusing on the click ID capture itself, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'after consent' gives a hint about when the tool is relevant, placing it in the post-consent capture flow, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over the many similar verification and diagnosis siblings. No alternatives are named and no exclusion conditions are stated.

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