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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuine beyond-annotation context: no API key required, the results are editorial suggestions rather than a live queue, and they are not proof a record is wrong — meaningful caveats an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the scope and the no-auth fact are front-loaded before the caveat about what the results mean.

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-required-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and result interpretation. The only gap is pagination semantics, which is minor given limit/offset are conventional.

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 0% and the description says nothing about limit or offset. The two pagination parameters are undocumented in both schema and prose, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('discover') and resource ('verification briefs'), and pins the scope with 'optional La Réunion'. It is distinguishable from the sibling prepare_verification_task (list vs. prepare), though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Adds useful framing ('optional', 'without a key') and clarifies what it is NOT ('not a live queue or evidence that a record is wrong'), which implies when it's appropriate. However, it never explicitly says when to use this vs. prepare_verification_task or the other list_* siblings.

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