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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by requiring a Proof account and client authentication. It also discloses the grouping behavior. It does not describe pagination behavior, rate limits, or return shape, so it falls short of a 5.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and grouping behavior, then uses a clear ACCESS block for prerequisites. It is appropriately sized, though the second sentence overlaps somewhat with the first and the authentication notes are longer than strictly necessary.

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 simple, read-only list tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, grouping, and authentication prerequisites. It does not explain pagination behavior or returned fields, but it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation in this context.

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 both page and limit are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (verified users), and adds the key grouping rule (grouped by external_user_id) and scope (all verifications per user). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as get_verified_user and list_verifications, which operate on single users or raw verification records.

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?

It provides clear access context: a Proof account is required and the client must be authenticated before calling. It also explicitly excludes one authentication path by stating that start_login does NOT open this tool. However, it does not compare the tool to sibling list/get tools or state when to choose it over them.

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