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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description exceeds that by disclosing an authentication prerequisite and the exact recovery flow (/mcp → Authenticate, or start_login as an alternative). This is genuinely useful beyond annotations. It doesn't describe return format or pagination, but the auth-gating disclosure is a meaningful addition.

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?

Two-part structure: purpose sentence first, then a clearly labeled ACCESS note. Front-loaded and earned. The auth instructions are somewhat verbose (parenthetical UX detail) but not wasteful.

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 tool is a simple zero-param list with readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema. The description covers purpose and the auth gate, which is the main non-obvious friction. Return shape is unspecified, but no output schema exists so this 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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are needed and none are implied incorrectly.

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?

Specific verb (List) + resource (verification requests) + scope modifier (created by the authenticated user). The 'created by the authenticated user' scoping distinguishes it from siblings like list_incoming_requests, list_verification_requests, and get_verification_request.

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?

Implies usage via the 'created by the authenticated user' scope, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus list_incoming_requests or list_verification_requests. No when-not guidance is provided.

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