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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned content (ids plus verification states) and is implicitly a read-only, parameterless operation, but says nothing about ordering, completeness, or pagination.

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 key information front-loaded and no redundant statements. The parenthetical domain tag and the terse '+' construction are slightly cryptic but not wasteful.

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 alone, and it does communicate what is returned. It falls short on whether the list is exhaustive and how results relate to the sibling get_fact tool.

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 the baseline applies; there is no parameter meaning the description could add or omit. The mention of verification state usefully hints at the shape of each returned item.

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 + verification states') scoped to the privacyuk domain. The domain qualifier distinguishes it from the dozens of parallel *_list_facts siblings, though it doesn't name get_fact/changes explicitly.

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: listing ids is the natural precursor to calling privacyuk_get_fact for details. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance versus privacyuk_changes or privacyuk_get_fact.

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