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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the meaningful extra that it 'Spends nothing' — cost behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations. It also discloses the response shape in the absence of an output schema, though it says nothing about result ordering or volume.

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 what verifiers are, then the returned fields, then how to use a name downstream, closing with the cost note. Dense and largely waste-free; the field enumeration is long but each item is a distinct return attribute and no output schema exists to carry it.

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?

A parameterless, non-destructive list tool with no output schema — the description fully compensates by spelling out every returned field, the cost implication, and how to feed a returned name into post_ask/ask_the_world. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it and act on the result is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter documentation is required. The description instead spends its words on enumerating the output fields, which is the more useful information for a parameterless tool.

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?

It identifies the resource precisely ('the verifiers on asks.world') and distinguishes what a verifier is ('checks answers by its own rules instead of rules written for the ask'), then enumerates the per-item fields returned (name, what it checks, checks offered, required answer inputs, fee per check, human approval). The verb 'list' is only implied by 'For each: ...' rather than stated, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 explicit downstream usage: 'Post an ask checked by one with post_ask or ask_the_world and `checker` (its name), plus `check` when it offers several', naming the sibling tools and the parameter mapping. It does not state when to call this vs. other listing siblings like list_asks or find_pro, but no alternate verifier-lister exists so selection is unambiguous.

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