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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that results are identifiers plus verification states rather than full fact content, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or that the operation is a non-mutating read.

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 short sentence with the payload description front-loaded and no filler. The '(bereavementuk)' parenthetical partly duplicates the tool name, which is the only wasted token.

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 and no annotations, the description must stand in for return-value documentation, and it does so only minimally: 'fact ids + verification states' leaves the exact shape and the follow-up call to get_fact unstated. For a zero-parameter list tool this is adequate but thin.

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 to explain; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies.

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 (list) and resource (fact ids) plus what each entry carries (verification states), scoped to the bereavementuk domain. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with bereavementuk_get_fact or bereavementuk_changes.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling get_fact tool for retrieving full fact bodies, and no note that this is the discovery/entry step for the domain. The agent must infer the list-then-get workflow from the tool names alone.

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