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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that verification_ref is required and unverified credits cannot be listed, and explains the effect of passing Verra parameters. However, it does not explicitly state that this tool creates a new credit entry or mention any side effects, permissions, or idempotency.

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 two sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the key behavioral aspects and provides guidance for the Verra scenario, but lacks explanations for required parameters like issuer and project_id, and does not differentiate from siblings like 'book'.

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?

The description adds meaning for verification_ref and Verra-related parameters (vcs_project_id, serial_number, vintage, methodology, registry) but does not explain other required fields like issuer, project_id, mass_g, or price_minor_per_kg. With 0% schema coverage, it partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'conservation credit on the book', distinguishing it from siblings like 'delist_credit'. It also specifies the critical requirement of verification_ref, making the purpose precise.

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 description explicitly states when verification_ref is required and provides specific guidance for trading on the Verra network, including which parameters to pass. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'book'.

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