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

Goes well past the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: it discloses that rows appear only after completion, that results are capped at 10 and ordered newest-first, that quick checks are not persisted, what fields each row carries, and that it costs no credits and never starts a check.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and written in tight sentences that each add information. There is minor redundancy: 'Read-only: it never starts a check' largely restates the readOnlyHint annotation already present in structured data.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: what appears, what does not, ordering, cap, cost, and what to do with the returned id. No further clarification is required.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the shape of each returned row and the `verification_id` handoff, which is useful but is output rather than parameter semantics.

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 and resource ('List the user's most recent completed deep checks'), names the producing sibling (`verify_claim`), and constrains ordering and volume ('newest first, up to 10'). An agent can distinguish it immediately from `get_verification` (single full result) and `assess_claim` (quick checks).

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers: the user asking about an earlier deep check, or a `verify_claim` whose result never arrived after the wait ended. It also states exclusions — running checks are not listed yet, and `assess_claim` quick checks are never stored — so the agent knows when this tool will return nothing.

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