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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing that signing secrets are never returned after creation, which is important context for an agent deciding what data it can obtain here.

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 short sentences, with the primary payload (URLs and verification status) front-loaded and the secret-disclosure caveat following. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With no parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (URLs and verification state) and a key limitation (secrets are never shown again). It could say more about ordering or what a 'destination' represents in relation to tasks, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and nothing in the description misrepresents the input surface.

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 makes clear this returns the user's claimed URLs plus each one's verification status, which is a specific resource and scope. It does not explicitly name the verb 'list' or contrast itself with siblings like verify_destination, but the subject matter is unambiguous.

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: an agent can infer you call this to inspect claimed destinations and their verification state. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to prefer verify_destination or register_destination instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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