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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return contents (fact ids and verification states), which is meaningful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about result volume, ordering, pagination, or whether the whole fact set is returned.

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 resource and returned fields front-loaded. The parenthetical domain tag is redundant with the tool name and could be dropped, but there is no padding otherwise.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool the description covers what is returned but not how it relates to its siblings in the workflow (list → get_fact → changes) or any constraint on reading the results. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent picking among ~100 near-identical domain tools.

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; baseline applies. Notably it also never mentions filtering, which correctly implies the list is unfiltered.

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 their verification states, scoped to the wageuk domain. It is distinguishable from wageuk_get_fact and wageuk_changes by the 'list' verb, though the bare '(wageuk)' suffix does little work since the name already carries the domain.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says to call this first to discover ids before calling wageuk_get_fact, and nothing distinguishes it from wageuk_changes. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'List'.

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