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

The annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that results are ordered oldest first, include author names, and are private to the owning account, which are meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the action, ordering, author visibility, and privacy scope without unnecessary details.

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 provides sufficient context about ordering, author names, and privacy. Since an output schema exists (though not shown), return format is not required in the description. The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers the essential aspects for correct invocation.

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 schema fully describes verification_id with examples of where it comes from (verify_photo, verify_content_credentials, or list_verifications). The description adds that the verification must be one you own, an additional semantic constraint not present in the schema.

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 action (list), the resource (internal comments on a verification), the ordering (oldest first), and the inclusion of author names. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_verification_comment, delete_verification_comment, and update_verification_comment by focusing on listing.

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 specifies the condition 'on a verification you own' and notes that comments are private notes, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative retrieval methods like get_verification, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over others.

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