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 discloses the authentication requirement (needs a Proof account, authenticate or sign in) and the sequence to follow. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the request is not pending, or any side effects. Given it's a mutation, more disclosure would be helpful, but the authentication note is valuable.

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 concise with two sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and the authentication note is directly relevant and placed after the purpose. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description includes the critical authentication prerequisite. It doesn't detail error conditions or result expectations, but given the simplicity and full schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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 covers 100% of the parameter (id) with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (extend) and the target (expiration time of a pending verification request). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cancel_verification_request and get_verification_request, which have different purposes.

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 usage from its purpose (when you want to extend expiration) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of when to choose a different tool, so guidance is only implicit.

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