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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses only the returned fields. It says nothing about whether the list is complete or paginated, whether it filters by verification state, what ordering to expect, or whether any auth/scope applies. 'List' implies a read operation, but that is the only behavioral signal offered.

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 return payload front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical domain tag is the only structural cue and the terseness borders on under-specification.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers what comes back (ids plus verification states), which is the key fact. It omits how the results connect to goodsuk_get_fact and goodsuk_changes and gives no sense of scope or volume, leaving a real gap in a large family of near-identical siblings.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are missing because no parameters exist.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List fact ids + verification states') scoped to the goodsuk domain, which lets an agent separate it from the sibling get_fact (detail retrieval) and changes (change history). It stops short of explaining what a 'fact' or a 'verification state' actually is, so the resource is named but not defined.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools goodsuk_get_fact or goodsuk_changes. The natural workflow (list ids here, then fetch a specific fact) is only inferable from the word 'ids' and never stated.

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