verifyChat

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 does state the success return ('Returns True on success'), but it omits failure semantics, the persistent state-changing nature of verification, reversibility, and permission requirements. For a write/stateful operation, this is a thin disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, roughly 20 words, with the core action front-loaded and the return value stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff and no redundancy with the input schema.

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 low-complexity tool (2 params, fully covered by schema, no output schema), the description covers the basic what and the success return. But with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves notable gaps: what happens on failure, and the fact that verification persists and can be undone via removeChatVerification. Adequate for basic invocation, but not fully complete.

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% and both parameters are richly documented in the schema itself (chat_id includes format and chat-type constraints; custom_description includes length limits and the org-permission condition). The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Verifies') and a clear resource ('a chat'), and clarifies the actor context ('on behalf of the organization which is represented by the bot'). This is distinct enough for an agent to tell it apart from the sibling verifyUser. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with siblings like verifyUser/removeChatVerification, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'on behalf of the organization' implies the precondition that the bot must represent an organization, which is useful usage context. But the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as verifyUser (for users) or removeChatVerification (for undoing this action). Usage guidance is only implied, not stated.

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