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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses pagination behavior, the Proof account requirement, and that start_login does not authenticate this tool, but it does not explicitly state that listing is read-only or describe defaults, ordering, or rate limits.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by a useful pagination note and then a concise ACCESS instruction. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or unnecessary detail.

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 straightforward list tool, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is listed, optional filters, pagination, and authentication requirements. However, since there is no output schema, it omits the shape of verification entries and default pagination details, which an agent would need for robust result handling.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five optional parameters in detail. The description only adds the generic phrase 'optional filters', which reinforces the schema's optionality but does not add new meaning beyond what the structured input schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List verifications', and adds that optional filters are supported and results are paginated, which clearly conveys the core function. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_verification_requests, but the resource wording distinguishes it from list_verification_requests and get_verification well enough.

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 ACCESS note provides a clear operational prerequisite: a Proof account is required and the agent must authenticate via /mcp before calling the tool. It also explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, an exclusion of one alternative path, but it gives no guidance on when to choose list_verifications over list_verification_requests or other related list tools.

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