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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=trueebb. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the inclusion/exclusion rules (owned plus grants, never scope=system), the anonymous-caller empty-list behavior, and the visibility constraint. These go beyond what the read-only annotation conveys.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is listed, what is returned, what is excluded, and which sibling to use for full config. No filler.

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?

Given the low parameter count, existing input schema, readOnly annotation, and output schema signal, the description covers visibility rules, exclusions, pagination, and the related get_verifier tool. Nothing an agent needs to choose or invoke this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (limit and cursor), so the description is not obligated to re-explain them. It mentions next_cursor coupling but does not add new semantic value beyond the schema definitions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List active (non-revoked) verifiers visible to the caller." It clearly distinguishes this from get_verifier by specifying that list_verifiers returns the visible set while get_verifier reads full deploy-time config of a specific version. The scope (owned + skill-derived, excluding platform-managed system verifiers) is explicit.

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 explicitly directs users to get_verifier when they need the full deploy-time config, giving an actionable alternative and the condition that selects it. It also provides important context: anonymous callers get an empty list and platform-managed verifiers are never included.

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