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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral detail: the 30-day default threshold and the guarantee that total_standards, cutoff, oldest_verified and newest_verified are always returned so an empty result is still informative.

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 sentences, with the core filter and default front-loaded before the return-value detail. The return enumeration is long, but since no output schema exists that content is justified rather than filler.

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, the description correctly documents the returned fields and the always-present summary values; annotations handle safety. The only shortfall is incomplete coverage of the two parameters' constraints, which neither schema nor description supplies.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and largely does: 'days' is explained as a threshold with a default of 30, and 'step' as an optional lifecycle-step filter. It omits the 1-3650 range on days and any hint of valid step values (maxLength 40), leaving a small 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?

The description states a specific resource and predicate: records whose last verification is older than N days. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from generic siblings like get or search, though it never names or contrasts those siblings 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?

The filter condition ('last verification older than N days') implies the audit/cleanup use case, and the optional lifecycle-step scoping narrows it further. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named (e.g., search for text-based queries), so guidance stays implied.

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