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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does not deliver. It never says the call is read-only, whether the list is complete or truncated/paginated, whether it requires authentication, or what 'verification states' actually enumerate — meaningful gaps for a zero-parameter tool that presumably returns the whole corpus.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the parenthetical '(motuk)' is a slightly awkward way to carry the domain qualifier.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description gives the shape of the return (IDs plus states) but not the semantics of those states or the result set's scope. Adequate to invoke, thin for interpreting the output correctly.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter detail.

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 fact ids') plus what comes back ('+ verification states'), scoped to the motuk domain by the trailing '(motuk)'. It does not differentiate itself from the two closest siblings, motuk_changes and motuk_get_fact, so the agent must infer the split from naming conventions alone.

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: returning IDs suggests this is the discovery step before motuk_get_fact. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the alternative motuk_changes for change history, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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