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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and the start_login behavior, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or error behavior. Minimal behavioral context beyond the access note.

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 concise sections: a clear purpose statement and an access note. Front-loaded with the primary function, no filler. Efficient and well-structured.

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 list tool with well-documented parameters, it is mostly complete, but lacks differentiation from similar list tools and does not describe the scope of 'verification requests' (all vs. user's). The access note is helpful but does not fill the usage 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 descriptions fully cover all 4 parameters (page, limit, status with enum explanations, reference_id). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but since coverage is 100%, 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?

States a clear verb (list) and resource (verification requests), and mentions optional filters and pagination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like list_my_requests or list_verifications, leaving ambiguity about the exact scope (e.g., all requests vs. user-specific).

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?

Provides an authentication prerequisite and notes that start_login does not open this tool, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scope (e.g., all requests vs. user's own) or when to prefer other list tools.

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