kyc_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pricing and an API URL but fails to describe any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what authentication is needed, rate limits, or the nature of the operation (e.g., synchronous vs. asynchronous).

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 very short and to the point, but it includes extraneous details like pricing and an API URL that may not be essential for an AI agent's tool selection. It could be more focused, but overall it is not verbose.

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's simplicity (2 required parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., verification result status, details) nor does it specify acceptable values for 'documentType' (e.g., passport, ID card). This leaves the agent uncertain about the outcome.

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 input schema already describes both parameters ('documentType' and 'documentNumber') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as 'KYC身份核验' (KYC identity verification) and labels it as '[Security]', which conveys its general purpose. However, it lacks specificity about the exact function compared to sibling security tools like aml_screen or email_verify, and it does not clarify whether it performs a simple check or detailed 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other sibling tools. It only states pricing information, which does not help an agent decide between kyc_check and similar identity verification tools.

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