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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that it returns status plus metered pair counts; it says nothing about polling cadence, terminal states, or whether counts are cumulative.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It could drop 'current' but there is essentially no waste.

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 simple read tool with annotations handling safety, this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description never characterizes the status values or the shape of 'metered pair counts', leaving the agent to guess what it will receive.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents verification_id including its origin and length bounds. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for fully-covered schemas.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the current status ... for a standalone verification') and even names the returned payload ('metered pair counts'). It distinguishes itself reasonably from verify_citations (which initiates) but not from the sibling verification_result, leaving the status-vs-result split implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema note that verification_id comes from verify_citations suggests this is the follow-up/polling call, but the description never says when to use this instead of verification_result or how long to wait. No when-not guidance.

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