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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds that results are paginated and that the call is gated behind an authenticated Proof account session. It still does not describe ordering, default page size, or empty-result behavior, but the added auth and pagination context goes meaningfully beyond the annotation.

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 sentences of core description followed by a clearly delimited ACCESS block; the functional statement is front-loaded. The auth block is slightly verbose but every line carries actionable information.

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 read-only paginated list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, pagination, and the authentication requirement. A canonical output example or sort order would be the only additions worth making.

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% and every parameter (page, limit, status, channel, external_user_id) is documented with its own description and enums. The description adds only 'optional filters', which duplicates the schema rather than extending it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('List verifications') plus scope ('with optional filters') and a return trait ('paginated results'). It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling list_verification_requests, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 important operational prerequisite (needs a Proof account, authenticate the client, start_login does not unlock this tool), which is useful. However it never states when to use this versus similar listing tools such as list_verification_requests or get_verification.

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