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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses an authentication requirement, the need for a Proof account, and a retry-after-login sequence. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' and the scoped resource, and the description adds meaningful auth-related behavior beyond the schema.

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 purpose is stated in one front-loaded sentence, followed by a compact ACCESS section. The auth instructions are specific and actionable, with no redundant phrasing or 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?

For a zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource, scope, authentication prerequisite, and the alternative auth flow. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. The 100% schema coverage is trivially satisfied, and the baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('verification requests'), and a precise scope ('created by the authenticated user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_incoming_requests and list_verification_requests without needing to open their schemas.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is usable: after authentication with a Proof account. It also gives a fallback workflow using start_login and says to call the tool again after a session opens. It does not explicitly compare against sibling list tools, but the user-scoped wording makes the intended use clear.

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