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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations ('with explanations'), indicating the response includes explanatory text rather than bare codes. It adds nothing about response shape, filtering, or ordering, so it clears the lowered bar but only modestly.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and appends the one differentiating detail. There is no filler, hedging, or redundancy.

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 output schema, the description is responsible for hinting at the return value, and 'reason codes ... with explanations' does that at a high level. For a simple enumeration tool with a single optional passthrough parameter and full annotation coverage, that is nearly complete; only the absence of any note on grouping/pagination keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the single generic 'query' passthrough object is technically documented. However, the description adds no meaning about what query options are meaningful for this endpoint, and the schema itself is a shapeless anyOf of string/number/boolean. High coverage with zero added semantic value yields the baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb (List) and resource (reason codes the /v1/verify endpoint can return), so an agent can immediately tell this is a reference-lookup tool. It separates itself from affix_verify, affix_verify_receipts, and affix_verify_policies by targeting error/reason codes rather than verification itself, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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 agent can infer this is the tool to consult when interpreting a result from /v1/verify, but the description never says when to call it or what alternative to use instead. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions stated.

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