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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses ordering ('newest first'), pagination defaults and cap, the auth model ('caller's own session bearer'), and the required scope. It stops short of describing the response shape or error/empty behavior, but the behavioral profile is otherwise clear.

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 tightly-packed sentence with parentheticals, front-loading the resource and scope before pagination and auth details. No filler sentences and every clause carries information.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: scope exclusions, ordering, pagination limits, auth, and required permission. Only the returned item structure is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both limit and offset are already documented, including the 20/96 values the description repeats. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 the caller's standalone verification jobs') and immediately scopes it by excluding batch jobs, naming the sibling that handles those ('use get_batch_results for those'). An agent can distinguish this from list_batches and get_batch_results without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states the exclusion condition ('jobs belonging to a batch are excluded') and routes to the correct alternative ('use get_batch_results for those'). It also gives the precondition for use (results:read scope on the caller's session), leaving nothing to inference.

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