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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is free; the description adds genuinely new behavior: a 50-item page cap, a required read scope (auth prerequisite), and the fact that still_checking/not_checked are not final verdicts. Remaining gaps are minor, such as cursor expiry or whether filtering is applied server-side across pages.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the page-size constraint, and every sentence carries information the agent needs (paging, scope, cursor discipline, status caveats). Only the 'next_cursor' versus 'cursor' wording costs it, being slightly wasteful and confusing rather than verbose.

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?

With no output schema, 4 parameters, and low schema coverage, the description should carry more of the load than it does: it never states what a result record contains or how filter/search scope the returned set. It is adequate to call the tool correctly for the happy path (job_id + cursor paging) but incomplete for a tool whose output shape must be inferred.

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 only 25% (only job_id is documented), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the cursor parameter (pass unchanged, preserves the initial filter and search) and clarifies two of the seven filter enum values, but it leaves filter and search semantics largely unexplained and refers to 'next_cursor' while the schema names the parameter 'cursor', a naming mismatch that can cause hesitation.

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 opening sentence states a concrete action and quantity ('Read up to 50 results per page'), and the required job_id plus the surrounding sibling set make it clear this retrieves per-item verification results for a job. It stops short of naming the resource explicitly ('results of what') and never distinguishes itself from fairvalid_get_job, so it is clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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 gives real procedural guidance for pagination ('Pass next_cursor unchanged for the next page') and warns about interpreting non-final statuses, which is implied when-to-use guidance. However, it never says when to call this instead of the closely named sibling fairvalid_get_job, nor whether pagination is required for large jobs, leaving the primary sibling choice to inference.

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