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

The description states it 'gets' the configuration, indicating no side effects. This aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It adds a bit of context by enumerating the returned data, but does not go beyond the annotations in describing effects.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without extraneous detail. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description specifies exactly what the response will contain (access type, share URL, invited emails), which is sufficient even though the output schema is not shown. It provides all necessary context for the tool's use.

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 only parameter verification_id is well-described both in the schema and the description, including its type (UUID) and how it can be obtained (from verify_photo, verify_content_credentials, or list_verifications). This provides complete context for the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the current sharing configuration of a verification, specifying the components (access type, share URL, invited emails). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like share_verification and unshare_verification which modify sharing settings, and get_verification which retrieves verification details.

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?

The description implies a read-only usage for inspecting sharing settings, which contrasts with the modifying siblings. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of share_verification' or provide conditional guidance, so it lacks an explicit when-to-use statement.

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