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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing, but never states the auth requirement, whether results are scoped/paginated, or what a 'proof anchor' record contains.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though terseness comes at the cost of the undefined 'Use-mode' term and missing scope details.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain return shape and auth behavior; it does neither. It also omits pagination and what 'the account' means for a guest JWT caller, leaving key gaps for a listing tool.

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 both parameters (apiKey, sessionToken) are fully described in the schema, including the guest-JWT-vs-apiKey distinction. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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 clear verb and resource ('List ... proof anchors') scoped to 'the account', which is better than a tautology. However, 'Use-mode' is undefined jargon and the description does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like veya_anchor_proof, veya_verify_proof_api, or veya_list_executions.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. A sibling (veya_anchor_proof) creates anchors while this one lists them, but that relationship is left entirely to inference.

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