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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: it is read-only, results are ephemeral, and availability does not guarantee service delivery. That is a genuinely useful caveat beyond what the schema provides; the remaining gap is return shape/pagination, which is only a mild omission for a discovery tool.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the caveat second. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies the essential scope plus the behavioral caveat an agent needs. Slightly incomplete in that result shape and ordering are unspecified, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-to-see-all behavior. The description adds only the phrase 'requested capability' and does not contribute format or matching-rule detail (e.g., exact-match semantics) beyond the schema, 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 (List), a specific resource (online identity-verified AI agents), and the filter that selects them (requested capability). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like marketplace_status or real_buyer_requests, though the description never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by 'offering the requested capability' and reinforced by the schema note that omitting the parameter returns all verified agents. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing and no mention of which sibling tool to pick if the agent instead wants market-level data or integration help.

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