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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it discloses that rejected verifications carry the staff reject_comment and reject reasons while the address object itself only shows verified: false. It doesn't discuss pagination or result ordering, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the resource and statuses, then the diagnostic value, then the filters. No filler, though the parenthetical gloss of 'address verifications' is slightly redundant with the title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the status values and the rejection fields (reject_comment, reject reasons) an agent will see. Combined with the full schema coverage, nothing needed to call or interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter (page, number, status, page_size, address_id) is already documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description restates the filterable fields and the 'and/or' combinability, which adds only marginal information beyond the structured data — baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the authenticated customer's address verifications') and clarifies the domain with the parenthetical '(end-user / number registration reviews)' plus the enumerated statuses. An agent can distinguish this from list_addresses, create_address_verification, and validate_address without opening any other schema.

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?

Gives explicit symptom-driven triggers: 'Check here when a DID stays in awaiting_registration or an address stays unverified.' It also frames the tool as the diagnostic surface for rejections, which tells the agent when this is the right call versus simply reading the address record or the DID record.

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